mcp-rtfm
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| analyze_existing_docsC | Analyze existing documentation files with enhanced content analysis and metadata generation |
| analyze_project_with_metadataC | Analyze project structure, create initial documentation files, and enhance with metadata/context |
| analyze_projectC | Analyze project structure and create initial documentation files |
| read_docB | Read a documentation file (required before updating) |
| update_docC | Update a specific documentation file using diff-based changes |
| get_doc_contentC | Get the current content of a documentation file |
| get_project_infoC | Get information about the project structure and files |
| search_docsC | Search across documentation files with highlighted results |
| update_metadataC | Update metadata for a documentation file |
| get_related_docsC | Find related documentation files based on metadata |
| customize_templateC | Create or update a custom documentation template |
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
The tool set has clear distinctions for most operations like reading, updating, and searching docs, but there is significant overlap between analyze_project and analyze_project_with_metadata, which could confuse agents about which to use for basic analysis. Additionally, analyze_existing_docs and analyze_project serve similar purposes with unclear boundaries, leading to potential misselection.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_existing_docs, customize_template, get_doc_content), making them predictable and readable. However, there are minor deviations like read_doc (verb_noun) vs. update_doc (verb_noun), which are still consistent in structure, and no chaotic mixing of conventions, so the naming is largely uniform.
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a documentation management server, covering analysis, retrieval, updating, and metadata handling. Each tool appears to earn its place by addressing specific aspects of the domain, such as project analysis, content management, and search, without feeling overly heavy or thin.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for documentation workflows, including analysis, reading, updating, searching, and metadata management. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for deleting documentation files or handling versioning, but agents can likely work around these with existing update and metadata tools for most tasks.