AI Square Documentation MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the category-specific searches (search_guides, search_troubleshooting, search_api). However, find_examples and search_code both operate on code content, which could cause misselection without careful description reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_categories, search_docs, get_page). Minor deviations include related_pages (adjective_noun) and server_status (noun_noun), which break the pattern slightly.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation server. Each tool addresses a distinct need, from search to retrieval to metadata, without unnecessary duplication or overwhelming count.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core documentation workflows: searching across categories, retrieving pages, finding related content, and checking server status. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all pages' tool, but search_docs and related_pages can compensate.
Average 3.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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 passing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'indexed code chunks' as a data source context, which is somewhat informative. However, it does not mention any behavioral nuances like result pagination, filtering behavior, or what constitutes an 'implementation example'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core purpose. It is concise and contains no fluff. However, given the tool's complexity (six parameters) and the complete absence of parameter descriptions, the extreme brevity might be seen as under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, but structurally it is effective.
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?
With six parameters, an output schema, and annotations, this tool has moderate complexity. The description only covers the basic 'what', leaving out parameter usage, filtering options, and any constraints. While the output schema covers return values, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to choose and invoke the tool effectively, especially without any sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the six parameters (query, tags, limit, language, categories, canonical_urls) or their roles. The single sentence provides no parameter semantics beyond the implied 'query' from the purpose, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('implementation examples'), sourced from 'indexed code chunks'. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_code' or 'search_api', so it misses the top score.
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, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts. While the purpose implies use for finding examples, there is no explicit direction, and sibling tool names are not referenced. This is essentially no guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra context by mentioning 'source citations,' which hints at return behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary verb-object ('Search documentation') and adds key qualifiers. However, it is slightly too terse for a tool with six parameters and many siblings.
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?
Given the tool's parameter count (6) and the existence of many sibling search tools, this description is under-specified. It does not clarify which documentation corpus is searched, what kinds of metadata filters are supported, or how results are structured. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but invocation context remains vague.
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 mentions 'optional metadata filters' collectively, which maps to tags, categories, content_kinds, and canonical_urls, but it does not explain any parameter individually, nor does it clarify the behavior of 'limit' or the required 'query'.
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 tool searches documentation, with optional metadata filters and source citations. This gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_guides, search_troubleshooting, or search_api.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why an agent might prefer search_docs over search_guides or find_examples. The context of sibling tools makes this omission notable.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description ('Find') is consistent with these and adds no contradictory behavior. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as result limits or error handling, so it meets the minimum bar given annotation coverage.
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 that is immediately informative and free of filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
While the tool has annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse given the context. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter's role or specify how this tool differs from similar siblings like find_examples and search_docs, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to make fully informed decisions.
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%, and the description only implicitly references the 'language' parameter ('for a requested language'). The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap and does not fully clarify parameter meaning.
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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'SDK documentation and code examples' and the scope 'for a requested language,' making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_examples or search_docs, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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 choose this tool over alternatives. It neither mentions specific use cases nor contrasts with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the conditions for use without adequate support.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond being a search; no mention of result formatting, ordering, or scope boundaries. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, immediately states the action and scope. Extremely concise, though it sacrifices specificity.
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 simple search tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks context for when to use this vs sibling tools and what 'categories' means. It is minimally viable.
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?
Input schema has query (required) and limit (nullable integer, default null), but the description mentions neither. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer semantics from schema names alone.
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 it searches categories configured as API/reference documentation, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('API/reference documentation'). It differentiates from sibling search tools by scoping to API/reference content, though 'categories' is somewhat ambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_docs or search_guides. The API/reference scope implies usage for reference docs, but no exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as return format or pagination behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no wasted words or redundant information.
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?
Given the lack of parameter descriptions, sparse behavioral details, and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete for a search tool. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description does not address how the search behaves, what the query matches, or how limit affects results.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'limit' beyond what their names imply. The agent must infer that 'query' is the search term and 'limit' caps results, which is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.
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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('categories configured as guides and tutorials'), which differentiates this tool from siblings like search_troubleshooting, search_docs, and search_code. The purpose is unambiguous and aligned with the tool 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 implies usage for finding guides/tutorials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_troubleshooting or find_examples. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only inferred.
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?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already disclose safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the search is limited to categories of type 'troubleshooting and support', which clarifies what the query targets. No contradictions exist.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with zero redundant content. The description is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, and the presence of an output schema and safety annotations reduces the need for extensive detail. However, the description lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to similar search tools, and parameter semantics are nonexistent, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters (query and limit). The description does not explain what the query searches within or how limit behaves, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.
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 'Search categories configured as troubleshooting and support content' specifies a clear verb (Search), resource (categories), and distinct scope (troubleshooting and support content), setting it apart from sibling tools like search_docs or search_guides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching for troubleshooting/support-related categories. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the unique scope.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of language prioritization but does not describe result ranking, filtering behavior, or the impact of tags/categories. This provides some added context beyond annotations but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded sentence that distinguishes the tool's purpose and features without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
With an output schema and strong annotations, the description doesn't need to describe return values or safety. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple sibling search tools, the description provides minimal usage context around filtering parameters and alternative tools, making it barely adequate for complex queries.
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 explain parameters. It only gives semantic meaning to 'language' (prioritization), leaving 'tags', 'categories', 'canonical_urls', 'limit' undocumented. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter search tool with only one required field.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('indexed code chunks'), and the word 'only' differentiates it from sibling search tools for docs, guides, and API. It also hints at language prioritization as a key feature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'only indexed code chunks' provides clear context that this tool is for code-specific search, distinguishing it from search_docs and search_guides. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for non-code search scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the 'unique, same-category' scope and the 'indexed canonical' prerequisite, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, grammatically clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and conveys the core purpose efficiently.
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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, terms like 'same-category' and 'indexed canonical' are not elaborated, which could leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding invocation.
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%, and the description does not explicitly explain either parameter. 'Indexed canonical page' loosely corresponds to the 'url' parameter but doesn't clarify it, and 'limit' is entirely unaddressed. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema types.
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 finds unique, same-category pages related to an indexed canonical page. The verb 'find' and resource 'pages' are specific, and the qualifiers distinguish it from sibling search and doc retrieval tools.
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 use when needing related pages for an indexed canonical page, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_docs or get_page. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is merely implied.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether categories are sorted, include empty categories, or pagination). It does not contradict the annotations.
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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No redundant words or information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the source ('indexed documentation') and the content (categories), and there is no missing required context.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.
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 ('List') and the resource ('categories represented in the indexed documentation'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search or retrieve pages.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's purpose implies usage: to retrieve the set of categories. It lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or what to use instead, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the page being 'complete' and 'canonical' and notes that chunk citations are included, which enriches response expectations beyond annotations.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded and without any filler or redundant phrases.
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 output schema covers return details, and annotations provide the safety profile. The description covers purpose and a key output trait, which is sufficient for a single-parameter retrieval tool; no critical gaps are evident.
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 only parameter 'url' is self-evident from the tool name and description, but the description adds no format or constraint guidance. With 0% schema description coverage, the description offers minimal extra semantic value beyond the obvious.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one complete indexed canonical page'), with a distinguishing detail ('including chunk citations'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search and related-page tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific URL is known and the complete indexed page is needed. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the resource type is distinct from sibling tools that search, list, or get related pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (capabilities, tools, resources), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter nature and existence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It clearly states the tool's scope without needing to explain return formats or parameters.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.
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 'Report' and clearly names the resource: 'current MCP capabilities, registered tools, and static resources.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that search or list pages, categories, and SDKs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need an overview of server capabilities, registered tools, and static resources. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately, especially given the distinct sibling tools.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![AISquare-Docs-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omkute101/AISquare-Docs-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omkute101/AISquare-Docs-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AISquare-Docs-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omkute101/AISquare-Docs-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omkute101/AISquare-Docs-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/omkute101/AISquare-Docs-MCP'

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