複数のランタイムにわたって AWS Lambda Powertools ドキュメントの検索機能を提供する Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバー。
インストール手順に従ってください。Claude Desktopユーザー向けのモデルコンテキストプロトコルクイックスタートに従ってください。MCP設定ファイルに以下のセクションを追加する必要があります。
{
"mcpServers": {
"powertools": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@serverless-dna/powertools-mcp"
]
}
}
}Related MCP server: MCP-Ragdocs
このプロジェクトは、大規模言語モデル（LLM）がAWS Lambda Powertoolsドキュメントを検索できるようにするMCPサーバーを実装します。lunr.jsを使用して効率的なローカル検索機能を実現し、結果を要約してユーザーに提示できるようにします。
LLMとの統合のためのMCP準拠サーバー
lunr.js インデックスを使用したローカル検索
複数のランタイムのサポート:
パイソン
タイプスクリプト
ジャワ
。ネット
バージョン固有のドキュメント検索（デフォルトは最新）
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build the project
pnpm buildサーバーは、stdio 経由で通信する MCP サーバーとして実行できます。
npx -y @serverless-dna/powertools-mcpサーバーは、次のパラメータを持つsearch_docsツールを提供します。
search : 検索クエリ文字列
runtime : 検索する Powertools ランタイム (python、typescript、java、dotnet)
version : オプションのバージョン文字列（デフォルトは「latest」）
src/ : ソースコード
index.ts : メインサーバーの実装
searchIndex.ts : 検索インデックス管理
indexes/ : 各ランタイム用に構築された lunr.js 検索インデックス
dist/ : コンパイルされた出力
pnpm buildpnpm test開発中は、次の構成を使用して、Claude Desktop で MCP サーバーを実行できます。
以下の構成は、Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) を使用して開発中に Windows の claude デスクトップで実行している様子を示しています。Mac や Linux 環境でも同様の方法で実行できます。
出力はバンドル ファイルであり、すべての依存関係がバンドルされているため、Windows にインストールされた Node で MCP サーバーを実行できます。
{
"mcpServers": {
"powertools": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"\\\\wsl$\\Ubuntu\\home\\walmsles\\dev\\serverless-dna\\powertools-mcp\\dist\\bundle.js"
]
}
}
}サーバーは、サポートされているランタイムごとに事前に構築されたlunr.jsインデックスをロードします。
検索要求を受信すると、次の処理が行われます。
実行時間とバージョンに基づいて適切なインデックスをロードします（現在は最新に固定されています）
lunr.jsを使用して検索を実行します
検索結果をJSONとして返します
LLMはこれらの結果を使用して、関連するドキュメントページを見つけることができます。
マサチューセッツ工科大学
Fetches the content of a Powertools documentation page and returns it as markdown. This allows you to read the full documentation for a specific feature or function. You MUST use the url returned form the search_docs tool since this will be the page to load.The URL must be from the docs.powertools.aws.dev domain. Use this after finding relevant pages with search_docs to get detailed information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it fetches and returns content as markdown, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format beyond markdown. It adds some context about domain restriction and dependency on search_docs, but behavioral traits are incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage rules. Each sentence adds value: first defines the action, second explains the output format and use case, third specifies the input source and domain restriction, fourth provides the workflow context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameter semantics and usage context. It covers the tool's role in the workflow with search_docs. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on errors, performance, or exact return structure, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'url' parameter must be from the docs.powertools.aws.dev domain and obtained from the search_docs tool, adding crucial semantic context beyond the schema's basic URI type. However, it doesn't detail URL format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('fetches') and resource ('content of a Powertools documentation page'), specifying it returns markdown. It distinguishes from its sibling 'search_docs' by explaining that this tool is for detailed content retrieval after search results are obtained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after finding relevant pages with search_docs') and when not to use it (the URL must be from docs.powertools.aws.dev domain, not arbitrary URLs). It names the alternative tool ('search_docs') and specifies the prerequisite input source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Perform a search of the Powertools for AWS Lambda documentation index to find web page references online. Great for finding more details on Powertools features and functions using text search. Try searching for features like 'Logger', 'Tracer', 'Metrics', 'Idempotency', 'batchProcessor', etc. Powertools is available for the following runtimes: python, typescript, java, dotnet. If a specific version is not mentioned the search service will use the latest documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runtime | Yes | ||
| search | Yes | ||
| version | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the search service defaults to the latest documentation if no version is specified, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., search results format).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently provides examples and runtime details in subsequent sentences. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the last sentence about version defaults could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's well-structured and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and some parameter context but lacks details on output format, error handling, or advanced usage scenarios. It's adequate for a simple search tool but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 explains the 'runtime' parameter by listing supported runtimes (python, typescript, java, dotnet) and the 'version' parameter by noting it defaults to latest if unspecified. However, it doesn't clarify the 'search' parameter beyond examples, leaving its semantics partially undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Perform a search of the Powertools for AWS Lambda documentation index to find web page references online.' It specifies the resource (Powertools documentation) and action (search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'fetch_doc_page' tool. The description provides helpful examples of search terms, which enhances clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by suggesting search terms ('Logger', 'Tracer', etc.) and mentioning runtime support, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'fetch_doc_page' or provide any exclusion criteria. It offers some contextual guidance but lacks clear alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0fetch_doc_pagesearch_docsScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_docs finds relevant documentation pages, while fetch_doc_page retrieves the content of a specific page. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly state the workflow relationship between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_docs, fetch_doc_page) with clear, descriptive names that match their functions. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a documentation search domain. While the tools cover the core search-and-retrieve workflow, additional utilities like listing available versions or filtering by runtime could enhance completeness. The count is borderline but functional.
The toolset covers the essential documentation search workflow: finding pages and fetching content. However, there are minor gaps, such as no direct way to list documentation sections or filter searches by runtime/version without relying on search queries. Agents can work around these with the provided tools.
MCP server for langchain documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
The AWS Knowledge MCP server is a fully managed remote Model Context Protocol server that provides real-time access to official AWS content in an LLM-compatible format. It offers structured access to AWS documentation, code samples, blog posts, What's New announcements, Well-Architected best practices, and regional availability information for AWS APIs and CloudFormation resources. Key capabilities include searching and reading documentation in markdown format, getting content recommendations, listing AWS regions, and checking regional availability for services and features.
