Skip to main content
Glama
tky0065

springdocs-mcp

by tky0065
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_spring_concepts

Search Spring Boot reference documentation for a concept (e.g., profiles) and optional version, returning matching section titles and excerpts.

Instructions

Recherche des concepts Spring Boot dans la documentation de référence (titres de sections correspondants, extraits)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conceptYesLe concept Spring Boot à rechercher (par exemple: 'auto-configuration', 'profiles', 'actuator')
versionNoVersion de la documentation Spring Boot (ex. '3.4' ou '3.4.2' ; le patch est ignoré ; 'current' ou absent = dernière)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / category
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Catégorie du concept pour filtrer les résultats",
-  "enum": [
-    "core",
-    "web",
-    "data",
-    "security",
-    "testing",
-    "production"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / concept / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Version de la documentation Spring Boot (ex. '3.4' ou '3.4.2' ; le patch est ignoré ; 'current' ou absent = dernière)",
+  "maxLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.8

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (matching section titles and excerpts), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, whether the search is exact or fuzzy, permissions, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently conveys what is returned. Dense but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming the return content, and the schema covers both parameters. But it omits any routing guidance against the crowded sibling set, leaving a real gap for an agent choosing between the several spring search tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the concept and version parameters (including the 'current'/absent semantics and patch-ignoring) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 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.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (recherche) and resource (concepts Spring Boot dans la documentation de référence) and hints at the return shape (section titles, excerpts). However, 'concepts' is vague and it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling search tools (search_spring_docs, search_spring_projects, search_spring_ecosystem, get_spring_reference), so an agent cannot tell which search surface to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no named alternative, despite 17 sibling tools including several near-identical search tools. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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