Skip to main content
Glama
mparth14

Document MCP Server

by mparth14
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: edit_document modifies content, read_doc_contents retrieves content, and return all the docs lists document IDs. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: edit_document uses snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, read_doc_contents uses snake_case but abbreviates 'document' inconsistently, and return all the docs uses a sentence-like format with spaces and no clear pattern. This lack of uniformity could confuse agents.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a document management server, as it lacks operations like creating or deleting documents. While the tools cover basic read, list, and edit functions, the scope is limited and may require workarounds for full document lifecycle management.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for document management: no create_document or delete_document tools, and missing operations like search or metadata updates. This incomplete coverage will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common document workflows beyond reading, listing, and editing.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool edits by replacement, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if old_str isn't found), side effects, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

    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's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy 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?

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., returns updated content?), failure modes, or behavioral traits like idempotency, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (doc_id, old_str, new_str) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

    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 ('edit') and resource ('document'), specifying the action as 'replacing a string in the document's content with a new string.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_doc_contents' (read-only) and 'return all the docs' (listing), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for creating documents), or compare to sibling tools like 'read_doc_contents' for viewing content.

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

  • 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 tool reads and returns content as a string, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose potential traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it accesses sensitive data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

    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 and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or output specifics. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for such a simple tool.

    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, with the single parameter 'doc_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.

    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 action ('Read the contents') and the resource ('a document'), with a specific output format ('return it as a string'). It distinguishes from 'edit_document' by focusing on reading rather than modifying, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'return all the docs' which might also involve reading documents. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

    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 alternatives like 'edit_document' or 'return all the docs'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied from the name and description alone, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications for large document sets, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.

    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?

    Single sentence, zero waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without any redundant information.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple list operation with no parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't address important behavioral context like whether this returns a complete list or requires pagination, or what format the IDs are in.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed ('all the document ids'), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema.

    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 ('return') and resource ('list of all the document ids'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_doc_contents', but the focus on IDs rather than contents provides implicit distinction.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_doc_contents' or 'edit_document'. The description implies it returns IDs only, but doesn't state when that's preferable over fetching full document contents.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

MCP-anthropic MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP-anthropic MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/mparth14/MCP-anthropic'

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