Skip to main content
Glama
mjpitz

RFC MCP Server

by mjpitz

get_rfc_section

Extract specific sections from IETF RFC documents by providing the RFC number and section identifier, enabling targeted access to technical specifications and protocols.

Instructions

Get a specific section from an RFC

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesRFC number (e.g. "2616")
sectionYesSection title or number to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for the 'get_rfc_section' tool. Validates parameters, fetches the RFC using rfcService, finds the section by case-insensitive title match, and returns the JSON stringified section or appropriate error.
    case 'get_rfc_section': {
      if (typeof typedArgs.number !== 'string' || typeof typedArgs.section !== 'string') {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidParams,
          'RFC number and section must be strings'
        );
      }
      
      try {
        const rfc = await rfcService.fetchRfc(typedArgs.number);
        
        // Find the matching section
        const sectionQuery = typedArgs.section.toLowerCase();
        const section = rfc.sections.find(s => 
          s.title.toLowerCase().includes(sectionQuery) || 
          s.title.toLowerCase() === sectionQuery
        );
        
        if (!section) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: `Section "${typedArgs.section}" not found in RFC ${typedArgs.number}`,
              },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: JSON.stringify(section, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
                text: `Error fetching section from RFC ${typedArgs.number}: ${error}`,
            },
          ],
          isError: true,
        };
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:168-185 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_rfc_section' tool in the MCP server tools list, including name, description, and input schema definition.
      name: 'get_rfc_section',
      description: 'Get a specific section from an RFC',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          number: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'RFC number (e.g. "2616")',
          },
          section: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Section title or number to retrieve',
          },
        },
        required: ['number', 'section'],
        additionalProperties: false,
      },
    },
  • Input schema validation for the 'get_rfc_section' tool parameters.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        number: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'RFC number (e.g. "2616")',
        },
        section: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Section title or number to retrieve',
        },
      },
      required: ['number', 'section'],
      additionalProperties: false,
    },
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 action ('Get') but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for a tool with no structured data beyond the input 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, clearly documenting both parameters ('number' and 'section'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of section formats or clarification on what constitutes a 'specific section'. With high schema coverage, 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific section from an RFC'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_rfc' (which likely retrieves entire RFCs) or 'search_rfcs' (which likely searches across RFCs), missing an opportunity for full differentiation.

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 its siblings ('get_rfc' and 'search_rfcs'). It lacks any context about alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/mjpitz/mcp-rfc'

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