Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
rjadhavJT

DocGen MCP Server

by rjadhavJT
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

DocGen MCP 서버

소스 파일에서 자동으로 문서를 생성해주는 MCP 서버입니다.

개요

DocGen MCP 서버는 소스 파일에서 정보를 추출하고 템플릿을 적용하여 표준화된 문서 작성을 자동화합니다. 다른 MCP 서버(Google Drive, GitHub, Perplexity)와 완벽하게 통합되어 포괄적인 솔루션을 제공합니다.

Related MCP server: RAG Documentation MCP Server

특징

  • GitHub 저장소 및 Google Drive 파일에서 정보 추출

  • 다양한 소스 유형(스크립트, 프레젠테이션, 코드, 참조 문서)을 처리합니다.

  • 템플릿 기반 문서 생성

  • 문서 기록 추적

  • Perplexity 통합을 통한 AI 강화 콘텐츠 생성

설치

필수 조건

  • 노드.js 16+

  • npm 또는 yarn

  • Google Drive API에 대한 액세스(Google Drive 소스 추출용)

  • GitHub API에 대한 액세스(GitHub 소스 추출용)

단계

  1. 저장소를 복제합니다.

    지엑스피1

  2. 종속성 설치:

    npm install

  3. 프로젝트를 빌드하세요:

    npm run build

  4. MCP 설정 파일에 다음을 추가합니다.

클로드 데스크탑용

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json 편집합니다.

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

VSCode Cline의 경우

VSCode Claude Dev 확장 프로그램의 MCP 설정 파일을 편집합니다.

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

용법

DocGen MCP 서버는 다음 도구를 제공합니다.

문서 생성

템플릿을 사용하여 소스 파일에서 문서를 생성합니다.

리스트_템플릿

사용 가능한 문서 템플릿을 나열하세요.

문서 기록 보기

이전에 생성된 문서의 기록을 봅니다.

템플릿

템플릿은 templates 디렉토리에 저장되며 콘텐츠 생성을 위해 간단한 마커 시스템을 사용합니다.

  • glama-ai - 프로젝트 식별자로 대체됨

  • {{date}} - 현재 날짜

  • {{section:NAME}} - 지정된 섹션에 대해 생성된 콘텐츠로 대체됨

새 .template 파일을 templates 디렉토리에 만들어서 사용자 정의 템플릿을 추가할 수 있습니다.

기여하다

기여를 환영합니다! 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.

특허

이 프로젝트는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 라이선스가 부여되었습니다. 자세한 내용은 라이선스 파일을 참조하세요.

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