SourceTap
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {
"tasks": {
"list": {},
"cancel": {},
"requests": {
"tools": {
"call": {}
},
"prompts": {
"get": {}
},
"resources": {
"read": {}
}
}
}
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| fetch_web_contentC | Download content of any web page using Jina reader. Args: url: The URL of the web page to fetch content from. |
| query_docsA | Index and search documentation from a ZIP archive URL. Args: url: URL to a ZIP file (e.g. GitHub archive) query: Search query |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: fetch_web_content retrieves any web page, while query_docs specifically indexes and searches documentation from a ZIP archive. Although both accept URLs, the actions and outputs are unambiguous.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with lower_snake_case: fetch_web_content and query_docs. The verbs differ but the structure is consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels quite thin. This is borderline for a useful MCP server, though the tools themselves are substantial and well-defined.
The server covers two distinct capabilities: web content retrieval and documentation search. Potential gaps include lacking a way to list or manage indexed docs and no broader web search beyond direct URL fetching, but the core scope is reasonably served.