Godot Engine 문서를 AI 코딩 에이전트에 제공하는 MCP 서버입니다.
Godot은 Unity나 Unreal에 비해 LLM 학습 데이터에 충분히 포함되어 있지 않아서, 에이전트가 GDScript API를 자주 환각(hallucinate)하거나, 노드 이름을 지어내거나, Godot 3.x 관용구를 4.x 프로젝트에 적용하곤 합니다. 이 서버는 실제 문서에 기반을 둡니다. 매뉴얼과 튜토리얼에 대한 전문(full-text) 검색과, 엔진 자체의 API 메타데이터로 구축된 구조화된 클래스 레퍼런스를 제공합니다.
공식 mcp Python SDK v2를 통해 MCP 사양 개정판 2026-07-28을 기반으로 구축되었으며, 동일한 서버에서 모든 이전 프로토콜 개정판도 함께 제공합니다.
상태: 개발 중. 서버, 도구와 리소스, 명령줄, 인덱스를 게시하는 주간 워크플로우는 모두 작동하며, Godot 4.7용 사전 빌드 인덱스가 게시되어 있어
sync를 실행하면 빌드 없이 설치됩니다. 아직 PyPI에는 없습니다. 아래와 같이 git에서 설치하세요. 스킬을 포함한 Claude Code 플러그인으로 패키징하는 것은 이후 단계입니다.
문서는 오프라인에서 단일 SQLite 데이터베이스로 인덱싱되므로 조회가 빠르고 네트워크 연결 없이도 작동합니다.
콘텐츠 | 소스 | 이유 |
매뉴얼, 튜토리얼, 시작하기 |
| 작성된 산문(prose) |
클래스 레퍼런스 |
| 구조화되고 타입이 지정됨 — |
docs.godotengine.org는 Cloudflare 챌린지 뒤에 있어 비브라우저 클라이언트를 거부하므로, 렌더링된 사이트는 소스로 사용되지 않습니다. 모든 것은 GitHub에서 가져옵니다.
Related MCP server: Godot MCP Documentation Server
사전 빌드 인덱스를 설치하세요. 약 8MB의 다운로드 한 번이며, Godot 버전당 한 번만 하면 됩니다.
uvx --from git+https://github.com/mcintalmo/godot-docs-mcp godot-docs-mcp sync
uvx --from git+https://github.com/mcintalmo/godot-docs-mcp godot-docs-mcp status그런 다음 클라이언트가 이를 가리키게 하세요. Claude Code의 경우:
claude mcp add godot-docs -- \
uvx --from git+https://github.com/mcintalmo/godot-docs-mcp godot-docs-mcp원하는 버전에 대해 게시된 인덱스가 없거나, 파서를 작업 중인가요? 대신 소스에서 직접 빌드하세요. git이 필요하며 약 1분이 걸립니다:
uvx --from git+https://github.com/mcintalmo/godot-docs-mcp godot-docs-mcp sync --rebuild모델이 확실히 틀리는 질문을 해보세요 — "move_and_slide의 올바른 4.x 시그니처는 무엇인가요?" — 그러면 get_godot_class_member에서 인수 없이 bool move_and_slide()로 답이 돌아와야 합니다. Godot 3.x에서는 인수가 여러 개였으며, 대부분의 학습 데이터가 기억하는 것이 바로 그 버전입니다.
명령어 | 용도 |
| stdio로 서빙. 클라이언트가 실행하는 것이며, |
| 사전 빌드 인덱스 다운로드. |
| 무엇이 인덱싱되었는지, 무엇으로 빌드되었는지, 뒤처졌는지 여부. 스크립트용 |
| 도구가 사용하는 것과 동일한 코드로 쿼리를 실행하고 순위를 출력합니다. |
| 설치된 인덱스의 릴리스 자산을 작성. 빌드 워크플로우용. |
모든 설정은 GODOT_DOCS_MCP_ 접두사가 붙은 환경 변수이기도 합니다. 전체 표는 config.py를 참조하세요.
문서는 예고 없이 변경되므로, 두 가지가 독립적으로 이를 추적합니다.
주간 워크플로우는 업스트림 커밋이 이동했는지 확인하고, 이동했다면 인덱스를 재빌드하고, 전체 말뭉치를 쿼리하여 답변을 확인한 후 릴리스 자산으로 게시합니다. godot-docs-mcp sync가 이를 사용자에게 전달하는 방법입니다.
실행 중인 서버는 하루에 한 번 백그라운드에서 새 인덱스가 게시되었는지 확인합니다. 절대 다운로드하지 않습니다. 지연된 인덱스도 빌드된 버전에 대해서는 여전히 정확하게 답변하며, 교체 여부는 사용자의 결정입니다. 대신 서버가 하는 일은 이를 알리는 것입니다. godot://status에서, 그리고 검색 결과에 한 줄 notice로 표시합니다. 확인이 실행될 수 없으면 답은 "확인할 수 없음"이며, 절대 "최신 상태"가 아닙니다.
모든 도구는 읽기 전용이며, 모든 응답은 한 번의 호출이 알리려던 대화를 압도하지 않도록 상한이 있습니다. 잘린 응답은 그 사실을 알리고, 나머지를 반환하는 호출을 명시합니다.
도구 | 용도 |
| 매뉴얼, 튜토리얼, 클래스 레퍼런스에 대한 순위 검색. 평문 질문도 작동합니다. |
| 페이지 또는 페이지의 단일 섹션 |
| 클래스의 상속 체인과 시그니처 맵 — 산문이 없으므로 300KB 클래스 항목도 답변 가능합니다. |
| 단일 멤버의 정확한 시그니처와 전체 설명 |
| GDScript 및 C# 스니펫, 출처 페이지와 제목 포함 |
URI | 콘텐츠 |
| 인덱싱된 버전, 개수, 빌드된 업스트림 커밋 |
| 말뭉치의 지도: 무엇을 담고 있는지, 어떻게 주소를 지정하는지, 어떤 도구를 호출할지 |
| 페이지 또는 그 섹션 하나 |
| 클래스 또는 그 멤버 하나 |
515개 페이지와 1,078개 클래스는 의도적으로 resources/list에 열거되지 않습니다. 템플릿은 모든 도구가 이미 반환하는 URI이므로, 검색 결과는 추가 도구 호출 없이 호스트가 바로 따라갈 수 있습니다.
uv가 필요합니다.
uv sync --dev
uv run pre-commit install명령어 | 용도 |
| 단위 테스트 스위트 (격리 — 네트워크 없음) |
| 실제 인덱스에 대한 통합 테스트 |
| 린트 및 포맷 |
| 타입 검사 |
| CI 린트 작업이 실행하는 모든 것 |
아키텍처와 기여 규칙은 CLAUDE.md를 참조하세요.
MIT. Godot 문서 자체는 Juan Linietsky, Ariel Manzur 및 Godot 커뮤니티가 CC BY 4.0으로 라이선스합니다. 이 프로젝트는 문서의 인덱싱된 형태를 재배포하며 해당 라이선스를 변경하지 않습니다.
Return one manual or tutorial page as Markdown, or a single section of it. Pass the uri from a search hit exactly as it was given: the #... on the end names the section that matched, and that section is what comes back -- section_title says which. Drop the #... to read the whole page. Pages are cut to fit the response budget: when truncated is set, section_titles lists the titles section accepts, so the rest can be read a section at a time. For a class-reference entry call get_godot_class instead -- this tool serves the prose documentation only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | A `godot://doc/...` URI, as returned by search_godot_docs. | |
| section | No | One title from the page's `section_titles`, or a section anchor. Overrides any `#...` on the uri. Omit to get whatever the uri asks for. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | Canonical `godot://doc/...` URI of the page. |
| hint | No | What to call next to see what was omitted, or to narrow the request. Empty when nothing was left out. |
| kind | Yes | Which part of the documentation this belongs to. |
| title | Yes | Page title. |
| markdown | Yes | The page or section content, as Markdown. |
| truncated | No | Whether content was omitted to stay within the budget. |
| breadcrumb | No | Trail of ancestor sections. |
| section_title | No | The single section returned, when one was asked for; empty for a whole page. |
| section_titles | No | Every section on the page, in order. These are the values `section` accepts, so a truncated page can be re-read one section at a time. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: pages are truncated to fit the response budget, truncated indicates this, and section_titles lists acceptable section values. It also explains the meaning of the #... suffix and how section overrides it, which is valuable context not visible in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but every sentence carries necessary operational information. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains uri semantics, truncation handling, and sibling differentiation without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a documentation-fetching tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description covers all needed calling context: source of the uri, section selection, truncation behavior, and the boundary with get_godot_class. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to pass the uri exactly, what the #... suffix does, how to drop it for the whole page, and how section interacts with the uri. This goes well beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return one manual or tutorial page as Markdown, or a single section of it.' It also distinguishes itself from get_godot_class by explicitly saying this tool serves prose documentation only, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit instructions on when to use the tool: pass the uri from a search hit exactly, drop the #... to read the whole page, and use section to read truncated content section by section. It also names the alternative get_godot_class for class-reference entries, providing clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a map of one engine class: what it inherits, what it is for, and the signature of every member it declares, without their descriptions. This is the cheap first call for any question about a class -- some class entries run past 300 KB, so the map is what makes them answerable. Choose the member needed from members, then call get_godot_class_member for its full text. Inherited members are not listed; request a class named in inheritance_chain to see those.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | List only members of this kind. Omit for every kind. Worth setting when a full map came back `truncated`. | |
| class_name | Yes | The class name, exactly as the engine spells it, e.g. 'Node2D'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| uri | Yes | Canonical `godot://class/...` URI. |
| hint | No | What to call next to see what was omitted, or to narrow the request. Empty when nothing was left out. |
| name | Yes | Class name. |
| members | No | Declared members, in source order. Inherited members are not listed; request a class from `inheritance_chain` to see those. |
| brief_md | No | One-line summary. |
| inherits | No | Immediate base class, empty for roots. |
| truncated | No | Whether content was omitted to stay within the budget. |
| tutorials | No | `(title, url)` pairs of linked tutorials. |
| deprecated | No | Why this class is deprecated; empty if not. |
| experimental | No | Why this class is experimental; empty if not. |
| description_md | No | Full class description, as Markdown. |
| inheritance_chain | No | Base classes from the immediate parent up to the root. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavior such as returning a map, potential truncation, and omission of inherited members. Combined with readOnlyHint=true annotation, the read-only nature is clear. No contradiction with annotations; description adds valuable context beyond the hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using three sentences to convey purpose, usage guidance, and edge cases (truncation, inherited members). No redundant wording; each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return type (map) and how to interact with the results (select a member, follow inheritance_chain). It also covers the truncation scenario. The tool is fully understandable within its context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters (class_name and include) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a map of one engine class, including inheritance, purpose, and member signatures without descriptions. It distinguishes itself as the 'cheap first call' for class questions, differentiating from siblings like get_godot_class_member and search_godot_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises when to use this tool (first call for any class question) and when to use alternatives (get_godot_class_member for member details, request inherited classes from inheritance_chain). It also explains the truncation behavior and how to follow up with include parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the exact signature and full description of one member of one class. Use this to confirm a signature before writing a call: Godot's API changed substantially between 3.x and 4.x, and a remembered signature is often the 3.x one. Several members can share a name -- Godot overloads constructors and operators -- so members may hold more than one. If the name is wrong, the error names the closest members the class does declare, which is usually where a 3.x name is corrected to its 4.x form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_name | Yes | The class name, exactly as the engine spells it, e.g. 'Node2D'. | |
| member_kind | No | Restrict to one kind, for the few names a class uses for members of more than one kind. | |
| member_name | Yes | The member name, e.g. 'move_and_slide'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | What to call next to see what was omitted, or to narrow the request. Empty when nothing was left out. |
| members | No | Every member of that name, in declaration order. |
| truncated | No | Whether content was omitted to stay within the budget. |
| class_name | Yes | The owning class. |
| member_name | Yes | The member name that was requested. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals meaningful behavior: overloaded constructors/operators can lead to multiple matches, and an incorrect name returns the closest declared members, often exposing the 3.x-to-4.x rename. This extra context is valuable for interpreting results and handling ambiguous cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with every sentence earning its place: it states the primary behavior, gives the concrete use-case with version mismatch, and warns about overloads and error behavior. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the return values are already documented. The description adds the only important context missing from structured fields: the version-confliction motivation, overload ambiguity, and the diagnostic behavior when a name is wrong. This makes the description functionally complete for the tool's simple lookup purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific verb-object pair 'Return the exact signature and full description of one member of one class,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The phrase 'one member of one class' implicitly distinguishes it from class-level lookups like get_godot_class, so an agent can separate it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'confirm a signature before writing a call,' specifically because Godot's 3.x and 4.x APIs differ. It does not name the alternative tools for 'when not to use it,' but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search runnable code examples extracted from the documentation. Each sample carries its language tag, the URI of the page or class it came from, and the heading it appeared under. Use this when working code is wanted; use search_godot_docs when an explanation is wanted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Values above 50 are reduced to 50 rather than rejected. Fewer may come back: the response is also capped by total size. | |
| query | Yes | What to look for, in plain words. A question is fine. | |
| language | No | Restrict to one language tag, e.g. 'gdscript' or 'csharp'. Omit for every language. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | What to call next to see what was omitted, or to narrow the request. Empty when nothing was left out. |
| query | Yes | The query as it was actually searched. |
| samples | No | Examples, best first. |
| truncated | No | Whether content was omitted to stay within the budget. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive behaviorni. The description adds that results carry language tag, URI, and heading, which gives the agent context about what to expect in results (though the output schema likely also documents this). It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, but for a search tool that's fine. The annotation covers safety, so the description adds marginal value about result content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, what results contain, and when to use this tool vs the sibling. With output schema present and full schema coverage, this is complete for the agent to decide and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (limit and query) have descriptions. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides)Skip. So baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('runnable code examples extracted from the documentation'), and immediately differentiates from the sibling search tool by stating the intended use case (working code vs. explanations). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when working code is wanted') and when to use the alternative ('use search_godot_docs when an explanation is wanted'). This clearly guides the agent to choose between siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the Godot documentation -- manual, tutorials, and class reference -- and return ranked matches. Start here whenever the exact class or page is not already known. Natural-language questions work as well as keywords: framing words are stripped before searching, so 'how do I make a character jump' finds the tutorial rather than every page titled 'How do I'. Follow a hit with its own fields: uri is what fetch_godot_doc takes, and a hit from the class reference also carries class_name and member_name, which are what get_godot_class and get_godot_class_member take. At most one hit is returned per page or class; also_matched counts the further matches on that same source that were folded into it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Restrict results to one part of the documentation. | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Values above 50 are reduced to 50 rather than rejected. Fewer may come back: the response is also capped by total size. | |
| query | Yes | What to look for, in plain words. A question is fine. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | What to call next to see what was omitted, or to narrow the request. Empty when nothing was left out. |
| hits | No | Matches, best first, at most one per page or class. |
| query | Yes | The query as it was actually searched, which may differ from what was asked when question phrasing was stripped out. |
| notice | No | An advisory about the index itself -- that a newer one has been published, for instance. It says nothing about the hits, which are as correct for the indexed version as they ever were. Empty when there is nothing to report. |
| truncated | No | Whether content was omitted to stay within the budget. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint already covers the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavior details: output fields (uri, class_name, member_name) and the handling of limit reductions. Slightly more detail could be given about ranking, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence contributes: search scope, usage direction, query example, output fields, and limit caveats are all packed without redundancy. The description is long but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's search nature and relationship to sibling tools, the description fully covers what results look like, how they map to sibling tools, and edge cases (limit reduction). No gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are thorough for all three parameters, including nuances like plain words for query, restriction by kind, and limit behavior (reduction to 50, size cap). The description reinforces these but does not introduce entirely new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Godot documentation'), and explicitly mentions it is for when the exact class or page is not known, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch specific docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit direction: 'Start here whenever the exact class or page is not already known.' Includes example of natural-language query and notes that framing words are stripped, guiding the agent on appropriate queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0fetch_godot_docget_godot_classget_godot_class_membersearch_godot_code_examplessearch_godot_docsScored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct retrieval need: prose pages, document/code search, class overviews, and individual member details. Cross-references are explicit, such as fetch_godot_doc directing class-reference lookups to get_godot_class, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
All tool names use a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: fetch/search/get followed by the object. The singular doc in fetch_godot_doc is meaningful because it fetches one page, while search_godot_docs searches the corpus, and get_godot_class_member extends get_godot_class naturally.
Five tools cover the full Godot docs workflow without bloat: search prose/classes, fetch prose, get class summaries, get member details, and search code examples. Each tool has a distinct role and none is redundant.
The surface covers the main documentation workflows: discovering sources via search, retrieving prose pages section-by-section, extracting cheap class overviews, drilling into individual members, and finding runnable examples. Search hits carry the exact fields needed by the retrieval tools, so there are no dead ends.
Serves your design system and coding standards to coding agents, so they stop guessing.
Versioned documentation registry and semantic search for AI tools and coding assistants.
Provide your AI coding tools with token-efficient access to up-to-date technical documentation for…
The documentation, as a tool your agent can call: 950+ AI-dev guides. Search + fetch tools.
