Skip to main content
Glama
naufal-halal

PI Doc MCP

by naufal-halal
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search returns a list of relevant pages, while get_page retrieves the full text of a specific page. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'search_pi_docs' and 'get_page'. The naming is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a documentation server focused on search and retrieval. It covers the core operations without being overbearing.

    Completeness4/5

    The set provides search and full-text retrieval, which are the primary operations for a documentation server. Missing features like browsing by category or listing all pages are minor gaps that do not critically hinder agents.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided. The description only states that it fetches text, without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, whether it follows redirects, or what happens if the URL is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

    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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    For a simple fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention the dependency on search_pi_docs for the URL, but the schema parameter description includes this. The description is adequate for a straightforward 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the fetch action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.

    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 action ('Fetch the text') and the resource ('a PI System documentation page by URL'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_pi_docs' by specifying a different operation (fetching vs searching).

    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 after obtaining a URL from search_pi_docs (as noted in the schema for the 'url' parameter), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a search operation with no mention of destructive behavior, but fails to disclose details like authentication, rate limits, or whether results are live or cached. The behavior is adequately described for a read-only search.

    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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a simple sibling, the description covers the key aspects: scope, input (query, optional bundle, number of results), and output format. It could mention pagination or error handling but is sufficient for a search 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?

    All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('AVEVA PI System documentation') with explicit scoping to docs.aveva.com/category/pi-system. It also states the return fields (titles, URLs, excerpts), clearly distinguishing from sibling 'get_page' which likely retrieves a single page.

    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 the tool is for searching PI system docs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling 'get_page' or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use.

    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

pi-doc-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

pi-doc-mcp 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/naufal-halal/pi-doc-mcp'

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