Skip to main content
Glama

get_server_docs

Retrieve structured documentation for the DevLens MCP server, including tool usage guides, workflow examples, and best practices to integrate web context into development environments.

Instructions

Get documentation about the WebDocx MCP server.

Provides guidance on server capabilities, tool usage, workflows, and best practices.

Args: topic: Documentation topic - 'overview', 'tools', 'workflows', 'orchestration', or 'examples'

Returns: Formatted documentation for the requested topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNooverview

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core implementation of the 'get_server_docs' tool, which provides documentation for the MCP server based on the requested topic.
    def get_server_docs(topic: str = "overview") -> str:
        """Get documentation about the WebDocx MCP server.
    
        Provides guidance on server capabilities, tool usage, workflows, and best practices.
    
        Args:
            topic: Documentation topic - 'overview', 'tools', 'workflows', 'orchestration', or 'examples'
    
        Returns:
            Formatted documentation for the requested topic.
        """
        docs = {
            "overview": """
    # WebDocx MCP Server
    
    MCP server for intelligent web research. 12 tools in 3 layers.
    
    ## Tools
    Primitives: search_web, scrape_url, crawl_docs, summarize_page, extract_links
    Composed: deep_dive, compare_sources, find_related, monitor_changes
    Meta: suggest_workflow, classify_research_intent, get_server_docs
    
    ## Design
    - Composable: small tools combine powerfully
    - Smart: auto-orchestration via suggest_workflow
    - Efficient: Markdown output, token-optimized
    - Context-aware: workflows adapt to research state
    
    ## Usage
    search_web → scrape_url (simple)
    suggest_workflow (auto-recommends)
    deep_dive (multi-source aggregation)
    
    ## Topics
    tools, philosophy, workflows, orchestration, examples
    """,
            "tools": """
    # Tools
    
    ## Primitives (fast, focused)
    search_web(query, limit=5) - DuckDuckGo search, returns [{title,url,snippet}]
    scrape_url(url) - Extract clean Markdown with metadata
    summarize_page(url) - Headings only, triage before full scrape
    extract_links(url, filter_external=True) - Categorize internal/external links
    crawl_docs(root_url, max_pages=5) - Follow links, aggregate docs with TOC
    
    ## Composed (workflows)
    deep_dive(topic, depth=3) - Search + parallel scraping + aggregation
    compare_sources(topic, sources) - Analyze consensus/differences across 2-5 URLs
    find_related(url, limit=5) - Discover similar resources via content analysis
    monitor_changes(url, previous_hash) - Track content changes via hashing
    
    ## Meta (intelligence)
    suggest_workflow(query, known_urls=[]) - Auto-recommend optimal tool sequence
    classify_research_intent(query) - Detect research goal (7 patterns)
  • Tool registration using the @mcp.tool() decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns formatted documentation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like whether it's read-only, has rate limits, requires authentication, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief elaboration and clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., safety, performance) to be fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'topic' parameter with specific values ('overview', 'tools', 'workflows', 'orchestration', or 'examples'), which clarifies its purpose beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it well, a score of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get documentation', 'Provides guidance') and identifies the resource ('WebDocx MCP server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on server documentation rather than research, comparison, crawling, or other operations listed in siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning 'server capabilities, tool usage, workflows, and best practices', suggesting it should be used for understanding the server's functionality. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for learning vs. performing actions) or any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Y4NN777/devlens-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server