Skip to main content
Glama
jgravelle

jdocmunch-mcp

by jgravelle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_doc

Read-only

Inspect a single document's structure and metadata: section handles, role and tag distributions, size, format, and indexed timestamp. Enables targeted doc navigation without reading content.

Instructions

v1.58+ — single-doc detail view. Pairs with list_docs (cross-doc inventory). Returns section list (handles), role_distribution, tag_distribution, byte_size, format, indexed_at for one doc. No content reads.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository identifier
doc_pathYesDocument path within the repo, e.g. 'api/auth.md'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.118.0
  2. Removedv1.99.0
  3. First observedv1.66.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds version requirement (v1.58+) and specifies return fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structural annotation.

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 fluff. First sentence orients with version and pairing, second lists returned fields. Every word earns its place.

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 absence of output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and notes limitations (no content). It is complete for its purpose, though could mention error cases or prerequisites for the doc existence.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic value for the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'single-doc detail view' and lists specific return fields, differentiating it from sibling 'list_docs' which is for cross-doc inventory.

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 explicitly pairs with 'list_docs' and notes 'No content reads', providing context for when to use. However, it does not mention alternatives for other sibling tools like 'get_section'.

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