Docs MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_docs

Search official documentation of supported libraries (LangChain, Docker, OpenAI) for a given query and retrieve relevant content.

Instructions

Search the latest docs for a given library and query Supports "langchain", "chromadb", "openai", "uv", "docker", "redis"

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "library": "<library>"
    },
    "name": "get_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The query for search for (Eg: "How to create a docker container")
`library`	Yes	the library to search in (Eg: "docker")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature or auth requirements. It does not; it only restates the basic search functionality. The agent gets no insight into side effects or constraints.

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?

Two sentences, each essential: first states purpose, second lists supported libraries. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only, auth) and doesn't mention pagination or result limits. Adequate but with gaps.

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% with clear descriptions, but the tool description adds the explicit list of supported libraries, which is not an enum in the schema. This provides extra guidance beyond the schema, earning a slightly higher score.

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 it searches docs for a given library and query, with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'docs'. It also lists supported libraries, distinguishing it from any potential siblings.

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?

No sibling tools exist, so the description doesn't need to distinguish. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor mentions any prerequisites or context.

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

get_docsA