Skip to main content
Glama
ojacques

MkDocs Material MCP Server

by ojacques
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

    Search and get page have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves search results across the documentation, the other fetches a specific page. There is no meaningful overlap in action or expected usage.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a snake_case verb-plus-product pattern: search_mkdocs-material and get_mkdocs-material_page. The only minor inconsistency is that the second tool includes '_page' while the first does not, but the naming remains predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is a thin surface, though search and page retrieval are the core operations for documentation lookup. This fits a narrow, focused server but sits at the low end of the appropriate range.

    Completeness4/5

    The pair covers the essential documentation workflow: discover relevant results via search, then retrieve a specific page. Missing broader navigation or listing capabilities is a minor gap, but typical documentation lookups are fully supported.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important usage constraint: the returned 'url' field MUST be included in responses to users. It does not elaborate on additional behaviors such as read-only guarantees, error conditions, or page content format, but the simple 'get' operation implies a safe read.

    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 short sentences with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded, and the critical instruction about the 'url' field is placed clearly in the second sentence.

    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?

    The tool has only one parameter, fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. The description plus parameter description together tell an agent how to invoke the tool and what to do with the result. It could be more complete by explicitly stating 'use after search_mkdocs-material', but that relationship is implied.

    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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the 'location' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 ('page from mkdocs-material documentation'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling search_mkdocs-material, though 'get page' versus 'search' is a recognizable contrast.

    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 itself gives no direct when-to-use guidance. However, the parameter description says 'Page location from search results', which implies this tool should be used after search_mkdocs-material returns a location. There is no explicit alternative or exclusion.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that results contain a 'url' field that must be included in user-facing responses. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or edge cases, but the read-only nature of a search tool is reasonably apparent.

    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 short sentences with no filler or redundant content. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important requirement about the 'url' field is stated immediately and clearly.

    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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete and adds the critical instruction about including the 'url' field in responses. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on when to use this tool versus get_mkdocs-material_page.

    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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

    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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search mkdocs-material documentation.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_mkdocs-material_page, though the search-vs-get distinction is reasonably implied by the name.

    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 clearly implies the tool is for searching documentation, which provides basic usage context. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_mkdocs-material_page, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

    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

mkdocs-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mkdocs-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/ojacques/mkdocs-mcp'

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