rfcxml-mcp
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
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
| resources | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_rfc_structureC | Get RFC section hierarchy and metadata. |
| get_requirementsA | Extract normative requirements (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) from RFC in structured format. |
| get_definitionsC | Get term definitions from RFC. |
| get_rfc_dependenciesB | Get RFC reference relationships (normative/informative). |
| get_related_sectionsC | Get sections related to the specified section. |
| generate_checklistB | Generate RFC implementation checklist in Markdown format. |
| validate_statementC | Validate if a statement complies with RFC requirements. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| RFCXML Schema Information | RFCXML v3 structure and schema information |
TDQS
Scored across 7 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific aspects of RFC analysis, with no overlap in functionality. For example, get_definitions extracts terms, get_requirements extracts normative language, and get_rfc_structure provides metadata, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as get_definitions, validate_statement, and generate_checklist. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for RFC analysis, covering key operations like extraction, validation, and dependency mapping. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for analyzing RFCs, including structure, definitions, requirements, and dependencies, with minor gaps such as lacking tools for editing or updating RFC content, but core workflows are well-supported.