Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
rjadhavJT

DocGen MCP Server

by rjadhavJT
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Servidor DocGen MCP

Generador de documentación MCP Server para la creación automatizada de documentación a partir de archivos fuente.

Descripción general

El servidor DocGen MCP automatiza la creación de documentación estandarizada extrayendo información de archivos fuente y aplicando plantillas. Se integra a la perfección con otros servidores MCP (Google Drive, GitHub, Perplexity) para ofrecer una solución integral.

Related MCP server: RAG Documentation MCP Server

Características

  • Extraer información de repositorios de GitHub y archivos de Google Drive

  • Procesar múltiples tipos de fuentes (scripts, presentaciones, código, documentos de referencia)

  • Generación de documentos basada en plantillas

  • Seguimiento del historial de documentos

  • Generación de contenido mejorada con IA mediante la integración de Perplexity

Instalación

Prerrequisitos

  • Node.js 16+

  • npm o hilo

  • Acceso a la API de Google Drive (para la extracción de código fuente de Google Drive)

  • Acceso a la API de GitHub (para la extracción del código fuente de GitHub)

Pasos

  1. Clonar el repositorio:

    git clone https://github.com/rjadhav/docgen-mcp.git
cd docgen-mcp

  2. Instalar dependencias:

    npm install

  3. Construir el proyecto:

    npm run build

  4. Agregue a su archivo de configuración de MCP:

Para Claude Desktop

Editar ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json :

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "docgen-mcp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/docgen-mcp/build/index.js"],
      "env": {},
      "disabled": false,
      "autoApprove": []
    }
  }
}

Para VSCode Cline

Edite el archivo de configuración MCP de la extensión Claude Dev de VSCode:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "docgen-mcp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/docgen-mcp/build/index.js"],
      "env": {},
      "disabled": false,
      "autoApprove": []
    }
  }
}

Uso

El servidor DocGen MCP expone las siguientes herramientas:

crear_documentación

Genere documentación a partir de archivos fuente utilizando una plantilla.

plantillas de lista

Enumere las plantillas de documentación disponibles.

ver_historial_de_documentos

Ver el historial de documentos generados previamente.

Plantillas

Las plantillas se almacenan en el directorio templates y utilizan un sistema de marcadores simple para la generación de contenido:

  • glama-ai - Reemplazado con el identificador del proyecto

  • {{date}} - Fecha actual

  • {{section:NAME}} - Reemplazado con el contenido generado para la sección nombrada

Se pueden agregar plantillas personalizadas creando nuevos archivos .template en el directorio de plantillas.

Contribuyendo

¡Agradecemos sus contribuciones! No dude en enviar una solicitud de incorporación de cambios.

Licencia

Este proyecto está licenciado bajo la licencia MIT: consulte el archivo de LICENCIA para obtener más detalles.

Available Tools

3 tools
create_documentationC

Create documentation from source files using a template

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathNoPath where to save the generated documentation
project_idYesProject identifier (e.g., "JUVR058")
sourcesYes
template_typeYesType of documentation template to use (e.g., "CRISPRseq_Analysis")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 states 'Create documentation' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if documentation already exists at the output path (overwrites?), or any rate limits/constraints. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 action ('Create documentation') and includes essential elements ('from source files using a template') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a write operation), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), behavioral implications of the mutation, or how parameters interact. For a documentation generation tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description mentions 'source files' and 'template' which loosely map to the 'sources' and 'template_type' parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., schema already describes template_type as 'Type of documentation template to use'). With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly compensate for the 25% gap or enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create documentation') and resources involved ('from source files using a template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (list_templates, view_document_history), which would require mentioning it's a generation/write operation versus listing or viewing operations.

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 existing templates or source files), compare to sibling tools, or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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

list_templatesC

List available documentation templates

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoOptional category to filter templates

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits). This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 'available documentation templates' entails (e.g., format, metadata), return values, or behavioral context, leaving gaps for a tool that likely returns a list of resources.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'category' documented as 'Optional category to filter templates'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or filtering behavior, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available documentation templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_document_history' which might also involve listing documentation-related items, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_documentation' or 'view_document_history'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

view_document_historyB

View history of previously generated documents

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of history entries to return
project_idNoFilter by project ID

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 states 'view history', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, which are important for an agent to operate effectively without structured annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('limit' and 'project_id'). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or usage examples, so it meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('view') and resource ('history of previously generated documents'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'create_documentation', which could also involve document-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'create_documentation', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcreate_documentation
    • First observedlist_templates
    • First observedview_document_history
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_documentation generates new docs, list_templates shows available templates, and view_document_history accesses past outputs. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_documentation, list_templates, view_document_history) with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a documentation generation server. While it covers core operations, more tools might be expected for tasks like updating templates, deleting documents, or customizing generation parameters.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover creation, template listing, and history viewing, but there are notable gaps: no update or delete operations for documents or templates, and no way to customize generation beyond templates. This could limit agent workflows.

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches