Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CHECK-MODULE MCP Server

CHECK-MODULE MCP Server

by muhammedehab35
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

search-docs

Search internal documentation using query, category, and tags to return relevant documents.

Instructions

Search through internal documentation. Returns relevant documents based on query, category, and tags.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search-docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query to find relevant documentation
categoryNoOptional: Filter by category (API, Database, DevOps, etc.)
tagsNoOptional: Filter by tags
limitNoMaximum number of results (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns relevant documents but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, or scope. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 search tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and basic parameters but lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, or performance implications. It is complete enough for basic use but not thorough.

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%, and the description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the parameters (query, category, tags) but does not elaborate on their semantics or usage beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 the tool searches internal documentation and returns relevant documents based on query, category, and tags. It distinguishes from siblings like add-doc and get-doc by focusing on search functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for searching documentation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-doc (single document retrieval) or list-available-libraries. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are given.

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