Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ragchat

mcp-ragchat

by gogabrielordonez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ragchat_widget

Generate an embeddable chat widget script that adds a floating chat bubble to any webpage, connecting to your RAG-powered chat server for AI-driven answers.

Instructions

Generate an embeddable chat widget. Returns a tag that creates a floating chat bubble on any webpage. Connects to the chat server started with ragchat_serve.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "ragchat_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name (used in widget title)
chatUrlNoChat server URL (default: http://localhost:3456). Change this when deploying to production.
titleNoWidget header title (default: 'Chat with us')
colorNoAccent color hex (default: '#22c55e')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 discloses the output type and server connection, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing widgets) or permissions.

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 with no wasted words; purpose, output, and context are efficiently communicated.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output for a simple widget generator, but could mention customization limitations or additional usage notes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema's 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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'embeddable chat widget', specifies the output as a '<script>' tag, and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning connection to 'ragchat_serve'.

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 the prerequisite of starting 'ragchat_serve' first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools