DocGuard
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| docguard_guardA | Run every enabled DocGuard validator against the project's canonical docs. Returns status (PASS/WARN/FAIL), every finding once with its stable code and suggestion, each code's evidence once, nextStep, doc coverage, semantic-claim count, and per-validator status and counts. Pass detail "full" for the complete guard JSON contract (per-validator finding copies, the reportable subset, raw benchmark statistics per code). |
| docguard_scoreA | Compute the project's CDD maturity score (0-100) with letter grade and per-category breakdown. |
| docguard_explainA | Explain a stable DocGuard finding code (e.g. STR001, ENV003): what it means, which validator emits it, and the inline suppression to use if it's a confirmed false positive. |
| docguard_verify_evidenceA | Evaluate |
| docguard_verify_claimsA | Extract the semantic claims in the project's canonical docs — documented numbers, limits, and enums — as a verification task list. Deterministic discovery, LLM judgment — the caller verifies each claim against the code. |
| docguard_reportA | Generate the commit-stamped compliance-evidence bundle: guard verdict per validator, findings grouped by stable code, CDD score, ALCOA+ data-integrity attributes, fix history, and a tamper-evident sha256 integrity hash. Evidence, not a gate — it reports state without failing. |
| docguard_docs_for_pathA | Exact answer to "which documentation describes this file?": canonical doc lines that name it (with heading, anchor and section), AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md/GEMINI.md lines, the @implements/@req IDs it declares, its @doc annotations, and doc sections whose covers= includes it with their review state. Deterministic, bounded, no model. |
| docguard_doc_structureA | A document's headings (level, text, anchor, line range, bytes), docguard:section markers (id, source, pinned, covers), fact markers, marker issues, last-reviewed date and size — so an agent can read one section instead of the whole file. |
| docguard_read_sectionA | Return one section's text, resolved by docguard:section id, then heading anchor, then exact heading text — or, with |
| docguard_task_contextA | The same deterministic packet as |
| docguard_diagnoseA | Run guard and return only what needs fixing: failing/warning validators with their messages, structured findings, and suggested next actions — shaped for an agent to act on. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 11 tools
Tools are mostly distinct, covering different stages of documentation compliance: scoring, guarding, reporting, verification, and doc inspection. However, docguard_guard and docguard_diagnose overlap (diagnose runs guard and filters output), and the verify_evidence/verify_claims pair could cause some uncertainty, though descriptions clarify the distinction.
All tools use a consistent docguard_ prefix with snake_case names. The pattern is predictable and readable, with no mixing of conventions.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation compliance server. Each tool appears to earn its place by covering a specific capability without excessive redundancy.
The surface covers scoring, guarding, reporting, evidence verification, claim extraction, doc structure, section reading, task context, diagnosis, and code explanation. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to list all validators or apply doc fixes, but core workflows are covered.