Skip to main content
Glama
glassBead-tc

MCP Documentation Server

by glassBead-tc
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have some overlap in purpose, as both get_docs_by_category and mcp_docs_guide retrieve documentation content, which could cause confusion. However, search_docs is distinct with its keyword-based functionality, and descriptions help clarify that get_docs_by_category provides structured overviews while mcp_docs_guide offers comprehensive guides, mitigating ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: get_docs_by_category uses snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, mcp_docs_guide uses snake_case but lacks a clear verb, and search_docs uses snake_case with a verb_noun pattern. The lack of a uniform verb style and the inclusion of 'mcp' in one tool name disrupt predictability.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 3 tools, the count is borderline thin for a documentation server, as it might lack operations like updating or deleting documentation. However, it covers basic retrieval and search, which could be sufficient for a minimal scope, placing it in the middle range.

    Completeness4/5

    For a documentation server, the tools provide good coverage with retrieval by category, comprehensive guides, and search functionality, allowing agents to access and find documentation effectively. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or management tools, but core workflows are well-supported.

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

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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.

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'structured overview,' which hints at the output format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'get' but not confirmed).

    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 front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

    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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output hint, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

    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 100%, with the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema, including its enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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's purpose: 'Get documentation organized by category' specifies the verb (get) and resource (documentation). It distinguishes from 'search_docs' by focusing on categorical retrieval rather than keyword search, though differentiation from 'mcp_docs_guide' is less explicit.

    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 is provided. The description mentions 'Returns structured overview of available documentation in each area,' which implies a browsing use case, but it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'search_docs' or 'mcp_docs_guide'.

    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 states the tool 'Get[s] comprehensive guides and documentation,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose in the first sentence and additional context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the tool's function and coverage areas, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.

    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's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a well-documented 'topic' parameter including an enum list. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying coverage of topics like 'getting started' and 'core concepts,' which are already in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

    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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive guides and documentation for Model Context Protocol development.' It specifies the resource (guides/documentation) and scope (MCP development). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'search_docs' beyond mentioning coverage areas, which keeps it from a perfect score.

    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. It mentions coverage areas (e.g., 'getting started, building servers/clients') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'search_docs'. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance results in a low score.

    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 mentions the return type ('relevant documentation sections with context') but lacks details on aspects like pagination, sorting, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., search scope or limitations). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that state the action and outcome without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or sibling tools.

    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 the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks completeness in behavioral details (e.g., how results are formatted or limited), which is needed for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'category') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of effective queries or category usage, but meets the baseline since the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('MCP documentation'), and indicates what it returns ('relevant documentation sections with context'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'mcp_docs_guide' beyond the search functionality.

    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 finding documentation sections based on keywords or phrases, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools ('get_docs_by_category', 'mcp_docs_guide'), such as for general searches versus category-specific retrieval or guided navigation.

    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

mcp-docs-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-docs-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/glassBead-tc/mcp-docs-server'

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