Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
memo

memo

by ngabzar02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_docs

Retrieve relevant documentation chunks for a library and query, using hybrid search and a local cache for fast, offline-capable access.

Instructions

Get relevant documentation chunks for a library and query. Cache hit: sub-ms. Cache miss: fetch+ingest+index once (~5-60s first time).

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": {
      "library_id": "<library_id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "get_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
versionNo
library_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait: caching performance (sub-ms on hit, 5-60s on miss first time, with fetch+ingest+index). Since no annotations are provided, this adds valuable transparency about potential delays and internal caching side effects, though it does not fully detail side effects or permissions.

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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and uses the second sentence for performance details, making it efficiently concise.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and performance but misses key contextual details like version semantics and usage guidance. It is not fully complete for correct invocation, though output schema likely explains return structure.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'library and query', mapping to library_id and query, but entirely omits the optional 'version' parameter, leaving the agent without clarity on its purpose or when to provide it.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'relevant documentation chunks' and scope 'for a library and query'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'versions' and 'resolve_library_id' by focusing on retrieving content rather than metadata or ID resolution.

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. Sibling tools exist, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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