Skip to main content
Glama
raccioly

DocGuard

by raccioly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Guard docs against code

docguard_guard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run all enabled documentation validators against a project's canonical docs to get PASS/WARN/FAIL status, findings, suggestions, coverage, and next steps.

Instructions

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNo"compact" (default): each fact once. "full": the complete guard JSON contract, as `docguard guard --format json` prints it.compact
projectDirNoProject to inspect: a directory inside the directories this server serves (absolute, or relative to the served directory). Defaults to the served directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.43.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / detail
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "compact",
+  "description": "\"compact\" (default): each fact once. \"full\": the complete guard JSON contract, as `docguard guard --format json` prints it.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectDir / description
      Previous value: -"Path to the project to inspect (absolute, or relative to the server's working directory). Defaults to the working directory the server was started in."New value: +"Project to inspect: a directory inside the directories this server serves (absolute, or relative to the served directory). Defaults to the served directory."
  2. First observedv0.30.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value is in behavior beyond that. It meaningfully discloses output semantics: deduplicated findings, per-code evidence emitted once, nextStep, coverage, and what 'full' adds — details the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contract, and the detail-mode explanation comes last where it belongs. Slightly dense enumeration of return fields, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly (status values, findings, evidence, nextStep, coverage, claim counts). The only gap is guidance on when this tool should be chosen over its many siblings, which the usage dimension already penalizes.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining what 'full' concretely contains (per-validator finding copies, the reportable subset, raw benchmark statistics per code), adding operational meaning beyond the schema's generic 'complete guard JSON contract'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: running every enabled DocGuard validator against the project's canonical docs. This is clear, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like docguard_score or docguard_verify_claims, so the agent must infer it is the aggregate entry point.

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?

Usage is only implied: running 'every enabled validator' suggests this is the comprehensive check, and the detail parameter implies a compact-vs-full workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to docguard_score / docguard_verify_evidence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools