Doc Manager

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose (create, read, update, delete for documents and attachments, plus search). No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions clarify edge cases (e.g., add_attachment replaces existing attachment).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_document, delete_attachment, search_documents). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb forms.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server covers all core operations for document and attachment management. The count is well-scoped—neither too few (would miss functionality) nor too many (would overwhelm).
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides full CRUD for plaintext documents and attachments. However, encrypted documents are only deletable; they cannot be read or updated via the server. This is a deliberate design but limits utility if encrypted documents are present.
Average 4.2/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly describes the read-only nature by using 'list', but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, nor does it mention performance implications or permissions. For a simple list, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 a single sentence of 17 words, efficiently conveying the purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides the list of fields, with no extraneous information.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it lists all documents and enumerates the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or behavior for empty vaults, but this is acceptable for a simple list operation.
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 input schema is empty (zero parameters) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does list the output fields, which marginally adds 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 the action 'list every document' and specifies the exact fields returned (id, title, encryption status, attachment status, content size). This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_documents' which likely supports filtering.
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 its siblings, particularly 'search_documents'. The description does not mention that this tool returns all documents without filtering, which could lead an agent to misuse it when a filtered query is intended.
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 present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the refusal for encrypted documents and the ability to optionally update the title. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on other fields, or the exact nature of the replacement (e.g., whether it's a full overwrite).
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds a key constraint. Every word is earned, and it is efficiently structured.
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 3 parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and a behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on return value, error handling beyond encryption, and does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter. It is somewhat complete but could be more helpful.
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 must compensate. It explains 'content' and 'title' (noting title is optional), but does not explain 'id' or provide constraints like format or length. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps for two out of three parameters.
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 'Replace' and resource 'existing plaintext document', with a specific constraint 'Refuses if encrypted'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_document or delete_document.
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 updating existing documents but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like create_document or delete_document. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
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, description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that encrypted documents are refused because content is unreadable server-side, a key limitation. However, it does not mention other behaviors like error handling or auth requirements.
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, zero wasted words. Essential information is front-loaded with purpose first, then a critical behavioral note. Ideal conciseness for an AI agent.
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 single-document fetch with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers main functionality and a notable limitation. It could mention output format (plaintext) but that is implied by 'plaintext document'. Minor gap.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter with description 'The document id (UUID, exactly as returned by list_documents).' The tool description does not add extra parameter info beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Fetch a single plaintext document by id.' Verb+resource is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_documents and search_documents by specifying single document retrieval.
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?
Description implies usage for fetching a specific document by ID but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites like obtaining the ID from list_documents.
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 carries full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates a plaintext document, returns the new ID, and does not support encryption. It does not discuss side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a simple creation tool this is acceptable.
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 with two sentences. Every phrase serves a purpose (action, return value, limitation). No superfluous text.
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 (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the plaintext nature of the content parameter, but it is largely complete.
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?
The input schema has 2 parameters (content, title) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'plaintext document' but does not explain what content or title should contain, nor any constraints. This adds little beyond the schema's type 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 'Create a new plaintext document', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it cannot create encrypted documents, which is a unique constraint among the sibling 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?
The description explains when to use (to create a new plaintext document) and explicitly states a limitation ('Cannot create encrypted documents'), which implicitly suggests an alternative may be needed for encrypted documents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names.
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 fully discloses return contents and a specific refusal case. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the provided details are sufficient for a read-only fetch 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediate result details. 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?
Given the simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers key output fields and a refusal condition. Missing details about handling missing attachments or invalid IDs, but overall adequate.
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 schema already describes the 'id' parameter as a UUID. The description adds 'plaintext document' context, but does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage.
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 fetches the file attached to a plaintext document and enumerates return fields (filename, byte size, base64 content, UTF-8 text rendition). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_attachment and delete_attachment by focusing on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when the user needs an attachment from a plaintext document. It provides a refusal condition for encrypted attachments, offering a hint for when not to use it, but does not explicitly compare with siblings.
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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a no-op if no attachment exists and works on encrypted attachments. However, it does not mention permissions or reversibility, but for a simple delete operation these are minor.
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 three concise sentences with no waste. It front-loads the main purpose and covers key behaviors and edge cases.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main operation, the no-op case, and a special case (encrypted attachments).
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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive.
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 action ('Delete the file attached'), the resource ('a document'), and what remains intact ('leaving the document itself intact'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'delete_document' by specifying only the attachment is removed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to remove attachment without deleting the document) and when not to use (if you want to delete the document, use 'delete_document'). It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: deletion of associated blobs, working on encrypted documents without content disclosure, and irreversibility. This goes beyond what the schema provides.
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 concise sentences that front-load the main action and scope, then add nuance. No unnecessary words.
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 the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and constraints. It is complete for agent use.
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% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a document and all its blobs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_attachment. It is specific 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when irreversible deletion is desired) and provides warnings about destructiveness, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
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 must disclose behavior. It states case-insensitive substring search and lists return fields. It does not mention potential limits, pagination, or performance, but for a simple search tool the disclosure is 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?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence explains functionality, second sentence lists return fields. Every piece of information serves a purpose.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality comprehensively. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and its search scope. No missing critical details.
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 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'Search term.' The description adds that the search is across titles and content, providing context beyond the schema. This justifies a score slightly above baseline 3.
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 performs case-insensitive substring search across titles and plaintext content, which is a distinct operation from sibling tools (CRUD, attachments). The verb 'search' and resource 'documents' are specific.
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 explains what is searched (titles, content) and what is returned (id, title, encrypted flag, matched field, snippet). No explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance, but sibling tools are obviously different (create, update, delete, etc.), so context provides clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: replacement of existing attachments, refusal for encrypted documents, and the one-attachment-per-doc constraint. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's side effects and limitations.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. It wastes no 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (attachment, replacement, encryption restriction). It could optionally mention what the response looks like or failure modes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'content' and 'content_base64' and the filename constraints, reinforcing the schema description. While helpful, it does not introduce entirely new information, so a slight premium over baseline 3 is warranted.
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: 'Attach a file to an existing plaintext document.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the one-attachment-per-doc design and replacement behavior, making it easy to understand when to use 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: it replaces pre-existing attachments, refuses encrypted documents, and clarifies the mutual exclusivity of content inputs. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others like delete_attachment or update_document.
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:

[![doc-manager MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giuliohome-org/doc-manager/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giuliohome-org/doc-manager)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![doc-manager MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giuliohome-org/doc-manager/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giuliohome-org/doc-manager)

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/giuliohome-org/doc-manager'

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