Documentation Search MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.9.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tool set mixes documentation search tools (get_docs, semantic_search, filtered_search) with security scanning (scan_library_vulnerabilities, multiple snyk tools) and other utilities (manage_dev_environment, generate_project_starter), causing confusion. Several search tools have overlapping purposes, and multiple security tools differ only in target (library vs. project, Snyk vs. OSINT).
Naming Consistency2/5
Tool names use inconsistent patterns: some are verb_noun (clear_cache, get_docs), others are adjective_noun (semantic_search, filtered_search) or brand-specific (snyk_scan_library). While all use underscores, the lack of a consistent verb style harms predictability.
Tool Count2/5
23 tools is excessive for a 'Documentation Search' server. Many tools (e.g., manage_dev_environment, snyk_monitor_project, generate_project_starter) are unrelated to the primary purpose, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
Completeness2/5
For documentation search, the server covers search, filtering, semantic search, examples, and learning paths, but it lacks update or CRUD operations. The inclusion of many security and utility tools suggests the surface is not well-scoped for its stated name, leaving gaps in documentation coverage and adding irrelevant functions.
Average 3.5/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 20, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It says 'manages' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., stops existing containers), idempotent, or what side effects occur. The Return says 'confirmation message with next steps' but no specifics about behavior.
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?
The description is concise (three lines plus Args/Returns). It uses a clear structure: purpose statement followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns line is generic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely. It lacks information on error states, idempotency, or what 'manages' specifically entails (start, stop, rebuild?). The return value is vague.
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 has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds some meaning: 'service' is clarified as 'The service to set up (e.g., 'postgres', 'redis')' and 'project_path' as 'The path to the project directory.' This provides value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for missing details like valid values or format.
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?
The description states it 'Manages local development environments using Docker Compose' and provides examples (postgres, redis). The verb 'manages' is broad, but the context makes it clear this is about setting up services via Docker Compose, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on caching, security scanning, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose key behaviors such as network requirements, file modifications, error handling, or the format of the security report. For a scanning tool, more transparency is needed.
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?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a short Args section). It is front-loaded with purpose, though the docstring-like structure is acceptable. Could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking output schema and annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, error conditions, and result details. As it stands, it is insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage and expectations.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by explaining that project_path is the path to the project directory with a default of current directory. However, it lacks details on accepted formats or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states it scans entire project dependencies using Snyk and returns a security report. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_project_dependencies' or 'scan_library_vulnerabilities', which may cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., Snyk installation, authentication). The description only implies usage through the action 'scan entire project dependencies'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions disk persistence and optional sitemap inclusion but omits details like network usage, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects. The description is too brief for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. While it could be slightly more compact, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the cached indexes are later used, what constitutes a 'supported documentation site', or any prerequisites. This lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description does not explain any of the four parameters (e.g., what 'libraries' expects, the format of 'persist_path', or the effect of 'include_sitemap'). The description must compensate for low coverage, but it fails to do so.
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: to pre-download and persist documentation site indexes, enabling Serper-free search. It specifies the type of indexes (MkDocs/Sphinx) and the effect (caching to disk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_docs' or 'semantic_search'.
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?
The description implies usage for enabling offline search without Serper, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'filtered_search' and 'semantic_search', more explicit guidance would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 'Dictionary with structured summaries,' but does not state whether this is a safe read operation, if it requires network access, or any other behavioral traits.
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?
The description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns) and covers necessary parameter details. However, it is slightly verbose and could be more concise.
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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains all arguments and the return type. However, it lacks detailed behavioral context and does not fully compensate for missing annotations or output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well. It explains each parameter ('query', 'libraries', 'version', 'auto_detect_version') with details and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the JSON 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?
The description states 'Search documentation for a given query and one or more libraries,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like filtered_search or semantic_search, lacking differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semantic_search or filtered_search. The description provides parameter details but no context on use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns configuration details, with no mention of safety (read-only?), side effects, or required permissions. This is insufficient.
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 concise with two short sentences delivering the core purpose and return value. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about what 'environment configuration' entails, its structure, or any usage notes. It is too minimal for a tool that could benefit from more context.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional context is required for parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves environment configuration and settings, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clear_cache' or 'health_check' that have different purposes, though no explicit differentiation is made.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools or any situational context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'set up continuous monitoring' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., does it create a monitoring session? Does it require authentication? What is the impact on the project?). This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus structured Args and Returns. Every part is necessary, with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks critical details: return format ('Status of monitoring setup and project details' is vague), error cases, or implications of the monitoring setup. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It repeats the schema's title ('project_path') with a minimal explanation ('Path to the project directory'), but adds no additional constraints, format, or behavior context. The default value '.' is not explained.
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: setting up continuous monitoring for a project using Snyk. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Set up continuous monitoring') and distinguishes from sibling tools like snyk_scan_project or snyk_license_check by focusing on monitoring rather than scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as snyk_scan_project for one-time scans or snyk_license_check for license compliance. There are no prerequisites or context about whether the project must already exist or if permissions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states output includes rankings and recommendations but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or performance characteristics. It is insufficient for a read operation.
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 concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should fully explain the return value. It vaguely mentions 'rankings and recommendations' but does not describe format, ordering, or how to interpret results. Given its role among many security tools, more detail is needed.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning over schema titles: 'libraries' are 'library names' and 'ecosystem' is a 'package ecosystem'. This provides context but is not detailed enough to compensate for the lack of schema 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 the tool's purpose: comparing security scores across multiple libraries to aid in selection. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools like snyk_scan_library.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'help with selection' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scanning individual libraries). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only discloses that including security scores is slower; lacks info on caching, side effects, or required permissions. No annotations provided to compensate.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but Args/Returns block is somewhat redundant with schema. Efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on security score computation, return format, and explicit differentiation from suggest_libraries. No annotations or output schema to fill gaps.
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?
Adds minimal meaning: explains partial_name as partial library name and include_security_score with performance note. Schema has 0% coverage, so description partially compensates.
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?
Clearly states it suggests libraries with security scores, distinguishing it from suggest_libraries and compare_library_security.
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?
Implies use when security scores are desired, but does not explicitly say when to avoid it, nor mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only states a generic read operation. It does not mention authorization needs, side effects, or what 'active configuration' entails (e.g., scope, format).
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, both front-loading the core action and its utility. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned configuration contains (e.g., which settings, data structure). It only vaguely refers to 'current, active configuration' and does not provide enough detail for an agent to use the output correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for no params. The description adds no extra param information, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.
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 returns the current active configuration of the MCP server and explains its purpose as a template for overrides. The verb 'returns' and resource 'configuration' are specific, and no sibling tool has an identical focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_environment_config or other config-related tools. There is no explicit when, when-not, or mention of alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description provides partial behavioral information: it scans a library and returns a detailed report. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. The output description adds some transparency.
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?
The description is concise but includes a structured 'Args' section that is helpful. It front-loads the main purpose. Minor redundancy with the schema is acceptable given no schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the tool's basic function and parameter semantics, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., Snyk account, API key), error handling, and usage constraints. The return summary is useful but incomplete for a security scanning tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by listing each parameter with a brief description (e.g., ecosystem as 'pypi, npm, maven') and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's empty descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool scans a library using Snyk for security analysis, mentioning the return includes vulnerabilities, licenses, and remediation. However, given sibling tools like 'scan_library_vulnerabilities' and 'snyk_license_check', it could better differentiate the comprehensive scope of this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'snyk_scan_project' or 'snyk_license_check'. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states clearing cache and returning a status message but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on other operations), whether it is destructive, permissions required, or scope of cache cleared.
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 extremely concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and sibling tools for cache management, the description could mention what 'documentation cache' encompasses or if it affects other tools. It provides minimal but adequate context for a simple tool with no 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?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed. It correctly implies the tool requires no input.
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 'Clear the documentation cache to force fresh fetches,' specifying the verb (clear) and resource (documentation cache) with a stated purpose (force fresh fetches). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_cache_stats or preindex_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as get_cache_stats (check cache) or preindex_docs (prefetch).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states it returns filtered results. No disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or limitations like rate limits or pagination.
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?
The description is structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Could be slightly more compact, but effectively communicates without redundancy.
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?
Covers all parameters adequately but lacks explanation of return format, pagination, error handling, or anything beyond basic filtering. With no output schema, more detail on results would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all 7 parameters with types and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the empty 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 'Search with advanced filtering options' and lists all filter parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like semantic_search or get_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semantic_search or get_code_examples. No context on prerequisites or usage patterns.
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?
Describes the core action (generating a project) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, file creation, permissions). Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and is minimally adequate.
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 plus Args/Returns sections, no fluff. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 two-parameter generation tool, the description covers purpose and basic parameter semantics, but the return value is vaguely described as 'a summary', and there is no mention of success/failure conditions or template availability.
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?
The description explains project_name as directory name and template as the template to use, but does not enumerate valid template values beyond an example. With 0% schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete guidance.
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?
Clearly states the tool generates a starter project from a template, with specific examples (e.g., 'fastapi', 'react-vite'). Differentiates from siblings like 'manage_dev_environment' which manage environments rather than generate projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. Does not mention that it might overwrite existing directories or require network access to download templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, or authorization requirements. Only states it returns a dictionary, leaving behavior unclear.
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?
Extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences. No superfluous words, making it efficient for an agent.
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?
Adequate for a simple stat tool with no parameters, but no output schema and description lacks details on what specific statistics are returned, limiting completeness for an agent.
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 (0 parameters, schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description does not add parameter info as none are needed.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves cache usage statistics with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cache usage'. Distinguishes from sibling 'clear_cache' which is a different action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to consider alternatives. Implied as a simple monitoring tool but no explicit context or exclusions.
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 discloses that the tool returns a structured learning path with progressive topics and resources, but lacks details on error handling, caching, rate limits, or permissions. The return format is vaguely described, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.
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?
The description is concise and follows a clear docstring structure with Args and Returns sections. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact. The format helps readability.
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 tool with low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of inputs and outputs. However, it lacks detail on the learning path's structure (e.g., topics, steps) and could be more complete given the lack of annotations. It is adequate but not 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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description adds meaning: 'library' is clarified as 'The library to create a learning path for', and 'experience_level' is described as 'Your current level' with examples. This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles and default value.
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: to get a structured learning path for a library based on experience level. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'structured learning path', and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on caching, security, or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context about prerequisites or exclusions is given, and sibling tools like get_code_examples or get_docs are not mentioned as alternatives. The agent has no help deciding when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, internet dependency, error handling for unknown libraries, caching behavior, or the format of the security report. Returns are mentioned but not structured.
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?
Extremely concise with only three sentences, yet includes purpose, arguments, and returns in a clear structure. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.
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 tool without output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use among siblings and does not explain behavioral details or error conditions, which is acceptable given tool simplicity but not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully clarifies both parameters: library_name with concrete examples and ecosystem with example values and default (PyPI). This compensates for the missing schema 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?
Clearly states it performs a vulnerability scan using OSINT sources, differentiates from sibling tools like snyk_scan_library (Snyk-specific) and scan_project_dependencies (project-level). Examples of library names and ecosystems provided.
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?
Implicitly suggests use when an OSINT-based vulnerability check is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., snyk_scan_library) or when not to use it (e.g., if offline).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a list of matching library names, but does not mention if it is read-only, any limitations, error behavior, or what happens with no matches. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a docstring-style args/returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded.
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?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It provides the input semantics and return format, but lacks context on when to prefer this over sibling tools like filtered_search, or behavior in edge cases. Could be slightly more comprehensive without becoming verbose.
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 parameter 'partial_name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies that it is a partial library name and gives an example ('lang' -> ['langchain']). This goes beyond the schema's minimal type/title information.
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: suggesting libraries based on partial input for auto-completion. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('suggest libraries') and provides an example that differentiates it from sibling tools like semantic_search or filtered_search.
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?
While the description indicates usage for auto-completion scenarios and provides an input example, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., filtered_search) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for best use is given.
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 fully bears the burden. It describes the operation as retrieving curated examples, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'curated' entails (e.g., source, freshness). The return type is mentioned ('curated code examples with explanations'), but behavioral traits are partially missing.
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?
The description is a single paragraph with an Args list and a Returns line. It is relatively concise with no superfluous information, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant given the description. It is front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'curated' means, error handling, or whether examples are cached). The return description is minimal ('curated code examples with explanations'). Some gaps remain for complete understanding.
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 0%, so the description provides all parameter documentation. It adds meaning by listing library, topic, language, version (with examples like '4.2' or 'stable'), and auto_detect_version with defaults. However, it does not explain allowed formats for library names or topic conventions, missing some semantic detail.
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 'Get curated code examples for a specific topic and library,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_docs' (documentation) and 'suggest_libraries' (library suggestions) by focusing on code examples.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While implied from sibling names that this is for examples and 'get_docs' is for documentation, no direct guidance on exclusions or when not to use is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks information on side effects (e.g., read-only nature, network access, file modifications). Only states it scans and returns a report.
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?
Two sentences plus Args/Returns block that is clear and concise. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Adequately complete for a simple scanner: lists file types and return type. Could add more details about report contents, but sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description explains the parameter (project_path) with purpose and default, adding value 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 it scans project dependencies from files like pyproject.toml or requirements.txt for vulnerabilities, specifying both the resource and action, distinguishing it from similar tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snyk_scan_project or scan_library_vulnerabilities. The description only implies usage for local file scanning.
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 full burden. It indicates the tool returns a 'License compliance report with risk assessment', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. Minimal but adequate.
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?
The description is concise, with a clear two-line purpose followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the Args details into the main description.
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 simplicity (two parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand basic usage, though it lacks examples or prerequisites like Snyk setup.
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 0%, but the description's Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'project_path' as 'path to the project directory' and 'policy' with possible values in parentheses. This enhances understanding of parameter semantics, though it could elaborate on policy options.
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 verb 'check' and the resource 'license compliance', using 'Snyk' for context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snyk_scan_project and snyk_scan_library, which focus on vulnerabilities, making the purpose unique and unambiguous.
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?
The description does not explicitly provide when or when-not to use this tool over alternatives. While the name and context imply it's for license compliance, there is no guidance on choosing it over other tools like snyk_scan_project or suggest_secure_libraries. Usage is implied but not clearly stated.
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 full burden. It states it is a read-only check returning health status, but lacks details on side effects, auth, or rate limits.
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 very short (2 sentences) and to the point, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does, though it could list possible status values.
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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 4.
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 checks health and availability of documentation sources and returns a dictionary of health status, with no confusion among siblings.
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?
The description implies usage as a diagnostic tool but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses hybrid search weights (50% vector, 30% keyword, 20% authority) and mentions vector reranking. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but provides good operational detail.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a bulleted hybrid search breakdown, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains search behavior, parameter details, and return values (ranks results across libraries). It could mention read-only nature but is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' block explains each parameter's meaning and defaults (e.g., version defaults to 'latest', auto_detect_version defaults to False). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 performs 'Enhanced semantic search across one or more libraries with AI-powered relevance ranking.' It uses specific verbs (search) and resources (libraries), and distinguishes from simpler search tools like filtered_search.
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?
The description implies usage for semantic search but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like filtered_search or suggest when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, description carries full burden; discloses it returns 'concise security summary with score and basic recommendations', adequate for a read operation.
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?
Very concise, front-loaded with main purpose, uses docstring format efficiently without unnecessary words.
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?
Adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return for a simple tool; lacks error/edge case info but not critical for this 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning by listing args with clarifications (e.g., 'default: PyPI'), compensating for schema gap.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get quick security overview for a library without detailed vulnerability list', specifying verb, resource, and distinguishing from detailed scanning tools.
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?
Implicitly tells when to use (quick overview vs detailed list) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![documentation-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gemini2026/documentation-search-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gemini2026/documentation-search-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![documentation-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gemini2026/documentation-search-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gemini2026/documentation-search-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/gemini2026/documentation-search-mcp'

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