Skip to main content
Glama
Tadarim

mcp-taro-docs

by Tadarim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

mcp-taro-docs

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for Taro official docs (https://docs.taro.zone).

It exposes a 2-step retrieval workflow:

  • Query candidates from the docs sitemap (query)

  • Fetch full page content by asset_id (get)

Tools

taro-official-query-assets

Filters and ranks candidate doc pages from https://docs.taro.zone/sitemap.xml (URL matching + lightweight scoring).

Arguments:

  • query (required): Query string

  • top_k (optional, default 10, max 50): Maximum number of candidates to return

  • pathPrefix (optional): Path prefix to narrow the search scope, e.g. /docs/components

  • caseSensitive (optional, default false): Whether to use case-sensitive matching

Returns:

  • results[]: items include asset_id, url, file_path, score, etc.

taro-official-get-assets

Fetches the full doc page text by asset_id.

Arguments:

  • asset_ids (required): asset_id list returned by taro-official-query-assets (max 10)

Returns:

  • contents[]: items include title, url, file_path, content (plain text), etc.

Related MCP server: web-docs-mcp

Local build & run

Requires: Node.js >= 18

cd /Users/bytedance/Downloads/taro-docs/mcp-taro-docs
npm install
npm run build

Build output:

  • dist/index.cjs (CommonJS, usable as the MCP Server entrypoint)

Quick test (stdio JSON-RPC)

1) List tools

node dist/index.cjs <<'EOF'
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list","params":{}}
EOF

2) Query then get (CoverImage example)

node dist/index.cjs <<'EOF'
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":2,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"taro-official-query-assets","arguments":{"query":"cover-image","top_k":5,"pathPrefix":"/docs/components"}}}
EOF

Copy results[0].asset_id from the output, then call get:

node dist/index.cjs <<'EOF'
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":3,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"taro-official-get-assets","arguments":{"asset_ids":["<asset_id>"]}}}
EOF

MCP client config examples

Cursor (mcp.json)

{
  "Taro Official Docs": {
    "command": "node",
    "args": ["/Users/bytedance/Downloads/taro-docs/mcp-taro-docs/dist/index.cjs"]
  }
}

Claude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "taro-official-docs": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/Users/bytedance/Downloads/taro-docs/mcp-taro-docs/dist/index.cjs"]
    }
  }
}

Notes

  • asset_id is a stable hash of the page URL (same URL => same asset_id)

  • pathPrefix is a scope filter; it does not need to equal the full path

  • The sitemap is cached in-memory per process (restart to refresh)

Available Tools

2 tools
taro-official-get-assetsA

Fetch online official docs page content by asset_ids returned from taro-official-query-assets.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idsYesAsset IDs to fetch

TDQS

A4/5.0
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. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or handling of invalid asset_ids. The description only specifies that the content is from online official docs pages, which is minimal behavioral context.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, and parameter relationship are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it fetches, how to get the input, and the tool's niche relative to its sibling. It lacks details on return formatting or error cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema already describes asset_ids as 'Asset IDs to fetch' with array constraints, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the source of these IDs (returned from taro-official-query-assets), which helps the agent understand the dependency and validity of the parameter.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('online official docs page content'), and the method ('by asset_ids'). It also references the sibling tool that produces these asset_ids, distinguishing it from 'taro-official-query-assets'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly notes that asset_ids come from 'taro-official-query-assets', implying the correct workflow of querying first then fetching. While it doesn't list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the referenced sibling provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

taro-official-query-assetsA

Query Taro official online docs (docs.taro.zone) via sitemap URL matching. Returns asset_ids for taro-official-get-assets.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesQuery text; used to match URL and rank results
top_kNoMaximum results (default 10)
pathPrefixNoOptional path prefix under /docs/, e.g. /docs/components/
caseSensitiveNoCase sensitive (default false)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (sitemap URL matching) and return type (asset_ids), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe limitations like only matching URLs, not full text. More transparency about behavior would be helpful, but the core is present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes the key output relationship without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, method, and output, but does not specify the exact return format beyond 'asset_ids' or behavior when no results are found. Overall, it is fairly complete for a query tool, but a bit more detail on return structure would push it higher.

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 each parameter clearly described (query, top_k, pathPrefix, caseSensitive). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries Taro official docs via sitemap URL matching and explicitly indicates the output is asset_ids for the sibling tool taro-official-get-assets. This distinguishes it from the sibling by showing a pipeline relationship: query for IDs first, then fetch content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by naming the sibling tool and explaining that results are asset_ids intended for taro-official-get-assets. This implies the tool should be used before fetching content, though it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.0.1
    • First observedtaro-official-get-assets
    • First observedtaro-official-query-assets
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one finds asset IDs via sitemap matching, the other fetches content using those IDs. No overlap or confusion between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the same verb-noun pattern with a consistent 'taro-official-' prefix, making the interface predictable and uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels minimal but is arguably sufficient for its narrow scope of querying and fetching docs. It borders on being too thin for a full-featured docs server.

Completeness4/5

The query-then-get workflow is logically complete for retrieving specific doc pages. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct URL fetch or list-all capability, but the core task is well covered.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-docs

    pgupta1795
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for documentation search that automatically indexes web documentation sites and provides semantic, full-text, or hybrid search capabilities.
    4 npm
    MIT

  • Docs MCP Server

    roystondz
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A search-and-retrieve MCP server that queries official documentation sites for modern libraries like LangChain, OpenAI, and Docker, extracting clean text content using Google Serper API and trafilatura.
    1
    -