Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
docs-mcp-server

docs-mcp-server

by arabold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

find_version

Read-only

Identify the available or closest version of a library, optionally matched against an exact version or X-Range pattern.

Instructions

Find the best matching version for a library. Use to identify available or closest versions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "library": "<library>"
    },
    "name": "find_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
libraryYesLibrary name.
targetVersionNoVersion pattern to match (exact or X-Range, optional).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds one useful trait — that matching may be approximate ('closest'), implying a fuzzy fallback rather than a strict lookup — but says nothing about behavior when no match exists or when the library is unknown.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence largely restates the first's implication, so it is not perfectly waste-free, but nothing is confusing or bloated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description should clarify what comes back — a single best-match version, or a set of available versions. That return-shape ambiguity is the main remaining gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that targetVersion is optional and accepts X-Range patterns. The description's 'closest' wording slightly reinforces the fuzzy-match semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the best matching version for a library') with clear scope, so an agent can distinguish it from refresh_version or list_libraries by behavior type. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives an implied usage cue ('Use to identify available or closest versions') but no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer on its own when to reach for this versus refresh_version.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools