Stimulus Docs MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The 'handbook-' tools are tutorial-focused covering different aspects like installation, concepts, and best practices, while the 'reference-' tools are API-focused covering specific features like actions, controllers, and values. There is no overlap in functionality between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern throughout. All tools use a prefix ('handbook-' or 'reference-') followed by a descriptive noun or concept, with consistent kebab-case formatting. This predictable structure makes it easy to understand the tool's category and purpose at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
The 16 tools are well-scoped for a documentation server covering both tutorial and reference material. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific aspect of Stimulus, from introductory tutorials to detailed API references, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for a Stimulus documentation server. It includes both tutorial tools for learning (installation, concepts, examples) and comprehensive reference tools for all major API features (controllers, actions, targets, values, etc.), with no obvious gaps in the domain.
Average 3/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
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 status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions learning and communication/coordination, which suggests a read-only or informational role, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's a query, documentation retrieval, or configuration tool, nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. It combines purpose and usage in one clause, but it's not optimally structured for quick scanning. It avoids waste but lacks the crispness of higher-scoring examples.
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 complexity (an API reference tool likely involving informational retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation, examples, or configuration data), leaving gaps in understanding its function and output.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is an 'API reference' for 'Outlets' and mentions connecting controllers for component communication, which gives some purpose. However, it's vague about what the tool actually does (e.g., does it retrieve, create, or explain outlets?), and it doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'reference-actions' or 'reference-controllers'. It partially restates the name ('Outlets API reference'), leaning toward tautology.
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 implies usage for learning about connecting controllers in applications, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reference-controllers' or 'reference-actions'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description fails to explain what the tool does behaviorally—whether it retrieves information, modifies settings, or performs another action. It doesn't mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists topics covered, which is concise but not front-loaded with clear purpose. It wastes space on a tautological restatement of the name ('Targets API reference') instead of immediately stating the tool's function. While brief, it lacks effective structure to guide an AI agent, making it adequate but with room for improvement.
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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how it behaves, leaving the agent unsure of the outcome. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context about functionality and results, but it only lists topics without actionable information.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for tools without parameters, where the description needn't compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Targets API reference - covers target definitions, properties (singular/plural/existential), shared targets, optional targets, and target lifecycle callbacks' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'reference-targets' as 'Targets API reference' without specifying what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieves, lists, or explains targets). It lists topics covered but doesn't state what the tool actually does, making it unclear whether this is a documentation viewer, configuration tool, or something else.
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 mentions topics like 'target definitions' and 'target lifecycle callbacks' but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using this tool. With sibling tools like 'reference-actions', 'reference-controllers', and 'reference-typescript', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'techniques' and topics like AJAX requests, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only reference, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what output to expect. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.
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, efficient sentence that lists key topics without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's function (e.g., 'Provides guidance on...').
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 complexity implied by covering multiple integration techniques, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation, examples, or code snippets) or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is appropriate given the lack of inputs, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool covers 'techniques for integrating external APIs and resources' with specific topics like AJAX requests and third-party libraries, which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify a clear verb (e.g., 'learn', 'explain', 'guide') or distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'handbook-building' or 'handbook-resilience', making it somewhat vague.
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. It lists topics covered but doesn't indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes content topics but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what the output format might be. This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool with zero parameters.
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, efficient sentence that lists key topics without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more front-loaded by starting with a clearer verb (e.g., 'Retrieve documentation for...') to enhance clarity.
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 complexity implied by covering multiple API topics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., documentation text, examples, or structured data) or how to interpret the 'reference,' leaving gaps for the agent to understand its use in 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides a 'Controller API reference' covering specific topics like lifecycle and communication, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'reference' means operationally (e.g., is it a lookup, documentation retrieval, or something else?), and it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'reference-lifecycle' or 'reference-actions' that might overlap in scope.
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 lists topics covered (e.g., lifecycle, scopes) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone among many similar 'reference-' siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'dynamically manage CSS classes' but does not specify whether this is a read-only reference, an interactive tool, or what operations it supports. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's domain (CSS classes API reference) and context (Stimulus controllers for styling and visual state management). It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more concise by removing 'learn how to' for directness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves operationally (e.g., is it a documentation lookup, a simulation tool?). For a tool in a reference-heavy sibling set, more clarity on functionality and output is needed.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the tool has no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides an 'API reference' for 'dynamically manage CSS classes in Stimulus controllers', which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., list classes, add/remove classes, query classes). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CSS classes rather than other Stimulus concepts, but the verb 'learn how to' is vague about the tool's function.
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 implies usage is for 'styling and visual state management' in Stimulus controllers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reference-actions' or 'reference-targets'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the topic covered but doesn't reveal how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it returns text, displays a webpage, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its operational traits.
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, efficient sentence that clearly states the topic without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Learn how Stimulus manages state'), making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action (e.g., 'Access documentation on...') to improve clarity.
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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic topic coverage but is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., text, links, or interactive content) or any behavioral constraints, which is inadequate for a tool that might involve content delivery. However, the simplicity of zero parameters mitigates some complexity.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero parameters, since no parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides educational content about 'how Stimulus manages state through values and data attributes' with coverage of 'reactive programming patterns and keeping state in sync with the DOM.' This gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what action the tool performs (e.g., 'read documentation' or 'display tutorial') and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'handbook-introduction' or 'reference-values' that might cover related concepts.
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 implies usage for learning about state management in Stimulus, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'handbook-introduction' for basics or 'reference-values' for specific technical details. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'covers' various topics, suggesting it might retrieve or display information, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, how data is returned (e.g., structured vs. text), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it.
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, dense sentence that lists the covered topics without fluff, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying the tool's output format) to improve usability, but it earns its place by specifying scope.
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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what it references, which is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks completeness on how the tool behaves or what results to expect, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a reference tool in a domain with many siblings.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides a 'complete reference for Stimulus actions' covering specific topics like action descriptors and event handling, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'complete reference' means operationally (e.g., is it a search, list, or documentation tool?), and it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'reference-controllers' or 'reference-lifecycle' in the same domain.
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 implies usage for referencing Stimulus actions information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other 'reference-' or 'handbook-' siblings. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to help an agent decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions building an example but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only demonstration, a code generator, or an interactive tutorial. Key details like execution time, side effects, or output format are missing, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key components. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the main action ('Build a real-world clipboard controller example'), though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the demonstrative aspect more smoothly.
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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool produces (e.g., code snippets, a live demo, documentation) or how it integrates with the broader handbook context. For a tool in a learning environment, more details on educational outcomes or usage context would be beneficial.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.
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 purpose: 'Build a real-world clipboard controller example' with specific components like Stimulus patterns, CSS classes, and JavaScript-HTML connections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'handbook-introduction' or 'reference-actions' by focusing on a practical example, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for learning or demonstration purposes, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, target audience, or scenarios where other tools like 'handbook-resilience' or 'reference-controllers' might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content ('integration guide') but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, how it presents information (e.g., static documentation vs. interactive), or any rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for an AI agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('TypeScript integration guide') and lists specific coverage areas. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action (e.g., 'Provides a guide for...').
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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool covers (TypeScript integration for Stimulus) but lacks details on the output format (e.g., whether it returns text, HTML, or structured data) and behavioral context. For a guide tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves when invoked.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and aligns with the schema.
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 purpose as providing a TypeScript integration guide covering specific technical areas (type definitions, strongly typed targets/values/outlets, and best practices for Stimulus with TypeScript). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on TypeScript integration rather than general handbook topics or other reference areas like actions or controllers. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (e.g., 'read', 'generate', 'explain') for what the tool does.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing TypeScript knowledge), exclusions (e.g., not for JavaScript users), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'reference-actions' or 'reference-controllers'. The context is implied as TypeScript-related Stimulus development, but explicit usage instructions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content covered ('value definitions, type coercion, change callbacks, and using values for reactive data binding') but doesn't disclose how the tool behaves—e.g., whether it returns documentation, examples, or structured data, or if it has any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's operation.
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, efficient sentence that lists key topics covered without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('Values API reference') and elaborates concisely. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating concepts with bullet points or clearer phrasing for better readability.
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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview of what the tool covers. However, it lacks details on the tool's behavior, output format, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a reference tool in a set of many siblings, more context on differentiation and usage would improve completeness.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.
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 purpose as providing API reference information about values, including definitions, type coercion, change callbacks, and reactive data binding. It specifies the resource ('Values API reference') and scope ('covers value definitions...'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reference-typescript' or 'reference-lifecycle' beyond the 'reference-' prefix.
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'reference-typescript' or 'reference-actions' for comparison. The user must infer usage from the content alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tutorial content but does not reveal key behavioral traits such as whether it's interactive, read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the output takes (e.g., text, code examples). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the main action ('step-by-step tutorial for building your first Stimulus controller') and adds specific details ('covers creating a greeting controller with targets, actions, and DOM event handling') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value.
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's complexity (a tutorial with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tutorial covers but does not address behavioral aspects or usage context. For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves or what results to expect.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there is no need for the description to compensate for parameter documentation. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.
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 purpose as a 'step-by-step tutorial for building your first Stimulus controller' with specific coverage of 'creating a greeting controller with targets, actions, and DOM event handling.' This provides a specific verb ('tutorial for building') and resource ('Stimulus controller'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'handbook-building' or 'handbook-introduction' which might also cover related concepts.
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. It mentions what the tutorial covers but does not indicate prerequisites, target audience (e.g., beginners vs. advanced users), or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'handbook-introduction' or 'reference-controllers.' This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It suggests this is an informational/guide tool (implied read-only), but doesn't disclose what format the guide takes, whether it's interactive, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('complete guide to installing Stimulus') and immediately specifies coverage areas. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys it provides installation guidance. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what format the guide takes (text, interactive steps, examples) and whether it returns structured data versus documentation. The current description is minimally complete but leaves questions about the tool's behavior.
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?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading parameter information.
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 provides a 'complete guide to installing Stimulus in your application' with specific coverage areas (Webpack, import maps, Rails integration, manual setup). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on installation rather than building, external resources, or reference topics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar installation-focused siblings if they exist.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when installation guidance is needed versus other handbook topics, or how this relates to the sibling tools listed. The agent must infer usage context from the title alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the educational content but doesn't reveal key behavioral traits: whether it's interactive, returns text/html, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 highly concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose (introducing Stimulus concepts) and efficiently adds explanatory context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.
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's complexity (educational content with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool covers but doesn't address how it behaves or what users can expect. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools without parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.
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 purpose: introducing Stimulus core concepts (controllers, actions, targets, values) and explaining how Stimulus enhances server-rendered HTML while separating content from behavior. It uses specific terminology and identifies the educational scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'handbook-building' or 'handbook-origin' which might cover related concepts.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., prior knowledge needed), target audience, or how it fits with sibling tools such as 'handbook-installing' or 'reference-controllers'. The user must infer usage from the title alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a reference tool (likely read-only), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns data in a particular format, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope and key elements (connect, disconnect, target callbacks, managing controller state). It's front-loaded with the main purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly 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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like return format or operational constraints, which could be important for a reference tool in a development 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant information, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.
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 purpose: providing a reference for controller lifecycle callbacks (connect, disconnect, target connection/disconnection). It specifies the resource ('controller lifecycle callbacks') and the scope ('managing controller state'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reference-controllers' or 'reference-actions'.
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'reference-controllers' or 'handbook-state', leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the general purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as informational ('Learn why'), which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Learn why Stimulus was created') and adds relevant details without redundancy. Every part earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming minor wording.
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's complexity (informational with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool covers but does not address behavioral aspects like response format or usage constraints. For a simple tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete by adding context on output or limitations.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adds value without unnecessary parameter details.
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's purpose: to learn about Stimulus's creation by DHH, covering its philosophy, server-rendered HTML approach, and differentiation from frameworks like React. It uses specific verbs ('Learn why', 'covers', 'differs') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the origin/philosophy aspect rather than installation, building, or technical references.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for understanding Stimulus's background, it does not mention when-not scenarios or name specific sibling tools (e.g., handbook-introduction or handbook-building) as alternatives. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes content coverage but doesn't reveal key behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only reference, if it requires authentication, how the information is presented (e.g., documentation, examples, interactive guide), or any rate limits. The description is purely about content scope without operational context.
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, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose and three specific coverage areas. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the key information.
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's zero-parameter simplicity and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about content scope. However, as a reference/documentation tool with no annotations, it should ideally clarify the format (e.g., is this a static document, interactive guide, or example repository?) and whether it's read-only. The description is minimally complete but leaves operational questions unanswered.
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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this absence. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 provides 'best practices for building robust Stimulus applications' with specific coverage areas (progressive enhancement, graceful degradation, handling edge cases). It distinguishes this from other handbook tools by focusing on resilience rather than installation, building, or reference topics. However, it doesn't specify the exact format or delivery method of these best practices.
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 context through 'building robust Stimulus applications' and the listed coverage areas, suggesting this tool should be used when developing resilient Stimulus code. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other handbook tools (like handbook-building or handbook-state) or reference tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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:

[![stimulus-docs-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pinzonjulian/stimulus-docs-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pinzonjulian/stimulus-docs-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![stimulus-docs-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pinzonjulian/stimulus-docs-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pinzonjulian/stimulus-docs-mcp-server)

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/pinzonjulian/stimulus-docs-mcp-server'

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