Skip to main content
Glama
docjet-dev

docjet-mcp

Official
by docjet-dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing templates, rendering to PNG, and rendering to PDF. No functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_templates, render_image, render_pdf.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the core functionality of template discovery and rendering, which is appropriate for this service.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover the primary use case of listing and rendering templates. The ability to provide raw HTML compensates for missing template management, though a tool to create/update templates would be a minor gap.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided; description covers the basic action (render, return signed URL) but does not disclose potential authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. It implies a creation operation but lacks detail on what happens to the PDF or if files are stored.

    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?

    Three sentences, under 40 words, no redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the core action and key parameters.

    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?

    Covers the main inputs and output (signed download URL). Missing explicit mention that template_id and html are mutually exclusive, but implied. For a tool with 3 parameters, it is reasonably complete given no output schema.

    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 baseline is 3. Description reiterates the two alternatives (template_id or html) and mentions data object, but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

    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 it renders a PDF using either a template_id (with reference to list_templates) or raw HTML, plus data. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the PDF output and referencing the template discovery tool.

    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?

    Description explicitly mentions when to use: when rendering a PDF with either a template or raw HTML. It references list_templates for discovery but does not contrast with render_image or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. Still, clear enough for an AI to decide.

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

  • 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 mentions the return value (signed download URL for PNG), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. Adequate but not exhaustive.

    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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence is valuable and direct.

    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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (signed download URL). It also mentions the html size limit (512 KB) indirectly via schema. Could be more complete about the URL format or expiration, but overall sufficient for a tool with three parameters.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the relationship between template_id and html (alternatives) and referencing list_templates. The data parameter is described as Handlebars data object, which adds context beyond the schema.

    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 renders a PNG image using the DocJet API, with specific use-case examples (OG/social card). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying PNG output vs list_templates and render_pdf.

    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 explains the two options for input (template_id or raw html) and mentions using list_templates to discover template IDs. It provides clear guidance on what to provide, but could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool (e.g., for PDF rendering).

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only list operation and specifies return fields, but does not disclose potential pagination, order, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple list tool.

    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?

    Single sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists return fields, and ties to sibling tools. Every part is useful and concise.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given no output schema and no required parameters, the description fully explains what is returned and how to use the results. Complete for a list-only tool.

    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?

    No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the return fields and their purpose, exceeding the baseline expectation.

    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 lists templates with specific fields (id, name, description, outputType) and distinguishes it from siblings by indicating the id is used in render_pdf/render_image.

    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?

    It tells when to use the tool (before rendering) by stating the returned id is used in render_pdf/render_image. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

docjet-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

docjet-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/docjet-dev/docjet-mcp'

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