Skip to main content
Glama
tizee

MCP-Server-IETF

by tizee

search_ietf_rfc_by_keyword

Search for IETF RFC documents by keyword in their titles, returning a list of matching RFCs with numbers and titles. Facilitates quick access to relevant Internet standards and protocols.

Instructions

Search for IETF RFC documents from RFC Editor Index by keyword in their titles

Args:
    keyword: The keyword to search for

Returns:
    A list of matching RFCs with their numbers and titles

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function implementing the 'search_ietf_rfc_by_keyword' tool logic. Registered via @mcp.tool() decorator. Searches the pre-loaded RFC titles for matches against the keyword (case-insensitive) and returns a list of matching RFC numbers and titles.
    @mcp.tool()
    def search_ietf_rfc_by_keyword(keyword: str, ctx: Context) -> List[Dict[str, str]]:
        """
        Search for IETF RFC documents from RFC Editor Index by keyword in their titles
    
        Args:
            keyword: The keyword to search for
    
        Returns:
            A list of matching RFCs with their numbers and titles
        """
        server_ctx = ctx.request_context.lifespan_context
        results = []
    
        for number, title in server_ctx.rfc_titles.items():
            if keyword.lower() in title.lower():
                results.append({
                    "number": number,
                    "title": title
                })
    
        logger.debug(f"search_rfc_by_keyword: {results}")
        return results
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope (keyword in titles) and return format (list of matching RFCs with numbers and titles), but lacks details on critical behaviors like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether the search is case-sensitive. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 (a search function with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, parameter use, and return format, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like search limitations or result ordering. Without an output schema, the description should ideally detail the structure of returned RFC objects, which it only partially does by mentioning 'numbers and titles'.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only defines 'keyword' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that this keyword is used to search 'in their titles' and specifies the source ('RFC Editor Index'), which helps the agent understand the parameter's role and constraints. With only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could benefit from examples or format hints.

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: 'Search for IETF RFC documents from RFC Editor Index by keyword in their titles.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (IETF RFC documents), and scope (RFC Editor Index, keyword in titles). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_ietf_doc' or 'list_ietf_docs_number', which likely retrieve documents by specific identifiers rather than keyword searches.

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 or contexts where this search method is preferred over others, such as when users have only partial title information. Without such guidance, the agent must infer usage 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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tizee/mcp-server-ietf'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server