Give an agent a place to put large output. Instead of returning 40k characters of a build log into the conversation, it posts the file to docbin and hands back one short URL. Docs render with syntax highlighting and markdown, every update is a new immutable version, and old links keep working. Six tools for create, read, update, delete, list and search. Works anonymously with no signup, or sign in for permanent docs under your own handle.
Create a document and return its public URL. Re-using an existing name adds a new immutable version. Omit the name to get a random one. For content larger than ~10KB or any file already on disk, do NOT inline it here - run docbin push <file> [--name <doc>] in your shell instead (set DOCBIN_TOKEN to an API key from https://docbin.app/settings/keys). Inlining large content streams it through the model token-by-token and will time out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Document name. A random slug is generated if omitted. | |
| files | No | Optional: a multi-file group. When provided, supersedes content/content_type. The entry file is auto-selected (index/readme/main, else first). CROSS-FILE LINKS: to link from one file in the group to another, use a bare relative link to the sibling's filename, exactly as given in this `files` array - e.g. <a href="page2.html">. The viewer intercepts it and switches the active file (updating the left-pane selection and the URL). Do NOT use absolute URLs, slugs, ./ prefixes, or #file- hashes for cross-file links. In-page anchor links within a file (e.g. #section) work as normal. | |
| content | No | The HTML, Markdown, MDX, or code body of the document. | |
| language | No | Syntax-highlight language hint, used when content_type is 'code' (e.g. 'rust'). | |
| visibility | No | Defaults to public. private = owner only; unlisted = anyone with the link; public = listed, searchable, and crawlable. | |
| content_type | No | Defaults to html. 'mdx' renders Markdown with JSX components; 'code' renders a single syntax-highlighted block. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| appUrl | Yes | |
| handle | Yes | |
| rawUrl | Yes | |
| deleted | No | |
| snippet | No | |
| version | Yes | |
| language | No | |
| visibility | No | |
| contentType | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only say this is not read-only, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses versioning behavior ('adds a new immutable version'), random name generation when omitted, and a concrete timeout risk for large content. These are non-obvious traits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no filler; the main purpose and key behavioral facts are front-loaded, and the size warning is delivered with a clear command alternative. The shell command is long but earns its place by preventing timeouts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the parameter schema covers every parameter, the description covers the remaining gaps: creation semantics, versioning, return behavior, and a clear failure mode. The sibling tool context makes the overall picture complete for an agent deciding between create, get, and search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond that by explaining name reuse creates immutable versions, linking content-size limits to the content/files parameters, and noting omission generates a random slug. It does not duplicate the schema's detailed param descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Create a document and return its public URL.' It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes this write operation from the read-only siblings get_doc and search_docs without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('content larger than ~10KB or any file already on disk') and names the exact alternative command (`docbin push`). This gives an agent actionable routing criteria and a fallback path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the raw stored content of a document. Defaults to your own handle and the latest version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Document name. | |
| handle | No | Owner handle. Defaults to the authenticated user. | |
| version | No | Version number. Defaults to the latest. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| appUrl | Yes | |
| handle | Yes | |
| rawUrl | Yes | |
| deleted | No | |
| snippet | No | |
| version | Yes | |
| language | No | |
| visibility | No | |
| contentType | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the content is 'raw stored content' and that handle/version default to your own and latest respectively, which helps the agent predict the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important default behaviors, 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has full parameter documentation, a read-only annotation, and an output schema. The description, plus the structured data, gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, handle, version) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the default behavior for handle and version, adding no extra meaning beyond the structured parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('raw stored content of a document'), which precisely identifies the operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_doc and search_docs without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the basic usage clear: fetch a document's raw content, defaulting to your own handle and the latest version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_docs or create_doc, leaving that comparison implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search your documents by name. Returns matches with their URLs and latest versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query matched against doc names. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | |
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that matching is by name and that results include URLs and latest versions, but it does not disclose possible limitations such as pagination, result caps, or exact/partial matching behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return value summary is given in a compact clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only search tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the main behavior and return contents. It could be slightly more complete with explicit alternative guidance, but nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents q as 'Search query matched against doc names' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the name-matching semantics but adds no new details about query syntax, formatting, or edge cases beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Search your documents by name') and the resource, and additionally specifies what is returned ('matches with their URLs and latest versions'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools create_doc and get_doc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is clear: search documents by name. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over get_doc or create_doc, nor does it state exclusions such as 'this does not search document contents.' Still, the described behavior provides adequate context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
create_docget_docsearch_docsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: create, retrieve, and search. There is no overlap between the actions, and the descriptions reinforce their differing purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_doc, get_doc, search_docs. The only slight variation is singular 'doc' versus plural 'docs', which does not harm predictability.
Three tools is a reasonable, focused set for a document storage service. Each tool handles a distinct core need and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The core document lifecycle of create, read, and search is covered, with versioning handled through create. A minor gap is the absence of a delete or full list-all operation, though agents can likely work around that for most workflows.