diataxis-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Classify documentation request

classify_doc_request

Classify documentation requests or page drafts into Diataxis modes to ensure appropriate structure and audience targeting.

Instructions

Classify a documentation request or page draft into a Diataxis mode.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "classify_doc_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`request`	Yes
`audience`	No
`declaredMode`	No
`existingContent`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`scores`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`rationale`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`dimensions`	Yes
`suggestedStructure`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the classification outcome but does not reveal how classification works, whether it modifies state, requires specific inputs, or has side effects.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters. Conciseness requires appropriate size; here detail is missing.

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 5 parameters, missing schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to provide complete context. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter beyond the tool's general function. Parameters like title, audience, declaredMode, and existingContent are left entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: classify a documentation request or page draft into a Diataxis mode. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like audit, plan, and suggest, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_doc_page or plan_doc_set. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server