Skip to main content
Glama
wangx-wx

Yuque MCP Server

by wangx-wx
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_doc retrieves a specific document by ID, while search finds documents by keywords. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_doc, search). The naming is straightforward and predictable, with no deviations in style.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a document management domain. While get and search are essential, there are obvious gaps like create, update, delete, or list operations that would be expected for a complete Yuque integration.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Yuque document server. It lacks basic CRUD operations (create, update, delete), listing capabilities, and other domain-specific functions like managing repositories or users, leaving agents unable to perform full document workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed content,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned content. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed content' includes (e.g., text, metadata, formatting), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (book_id as 'Knowledge base (repository) ID' and doc_id as 'Document ID'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by doc_id,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 action ('Get detailed content') and the resource ('a specific Yuque document by doc_id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which likely searches across documents rather than retrieving a specific one, so it misses the highest score for sibling differentiation.

    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 like the sibling 'search' tool. It mentions retrieving a specific document by doc_id, which implies usage when the exact document ID is known, but this is not explicitly stated as a guideline or contrasted with other tools.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('search for documents') without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, as it leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

    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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and basic usage. There's no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like search constraints, result format, or error handling. For a search tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'q' documented as 'Search keyword.' The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'keywords' but doesn't provide additional semantics like search scope or syntax. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

    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 verb ('search') and resource ('documents in Yuque'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_doc' (which likely retrieves a specific document), so it doesn't reach the highest score of 5.

    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 minimal guidance with 'Use this tool to find documents by keywords,' but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'get_doc' or any other context, leaving the agent with little direction.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

yuque-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

yuque-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/wangx-wx/yuque-mcp'

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