Skip to main content
Glama
VibeCoding4-JC

PDP MCP Server

by VibeCoding4-JC
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

PDP MCP Server

MCP Server untuk menjawab pertanyaan seputar UU Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Perlindungan Data Pribadi (UU PDP) menggunakan RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) dengan Pinecone sebagai vector database.

🚀 Features

  • RAG-powered Q&A: Menjawab pertanyaan berdasarkan isi UU PDP

  • 6 MCP Tools:

    • tanya_pdp - Pertanyaan umum tentang UU PDP

    • cari_pasal - Cari pasal berdasarkan nomor/keyword

    • definisi_istilah - Cari definisi istilah hukum

    • hak_subjek_data - Hak-hak pemilik data pribadi

    • kewajiban_pengendali - Kewajiban pengendali/prosesor data

    • sanksi_pelanggaran - Sanksi administratif dan pidana

Related MCP server: OpenAI SDK Knowledge MCP Server

📋 Requirements

  • Python 3.11+

  • Pinecone Account (Free tier available)

  • OpenAI API Key

🛠️ Installation

  1. Clone repository:

git clone <repository-url>
cd pdp-mcp-server

  1. Create virtual environment:

python -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate  # Linux/Mac
# atau
.\venv\Scripts\activate  # Windows

  1. Install dependencies:

pip install -r requirements.txt

  1. Setup environment variables:

cp .env.example .env
# Edit .env dengan API keys Anda

📚 Data Ingestion

  1. Ekstrak PDF UU PDP:

python scripts/extract_pdf.py

  1. Ingest data ke Pinecone:

python scripts/ingest_data.py

🖥️ Running the Server

python -m src.server

🧪 Testing

pytest tests/ -v

📖 Usage with Claude Desktop

Add to your Claude Desktop config (claude_desktop_config.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pdp-assistant": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["-m", "src.server"],
      "cwd": "/path/to/pdp-mcp-server"
    }
  }
}

📄 License

MIT License

📚 References

Available Tools

2 tools
server_statusC

Cek status server.

Returns: Status server

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it checks status but does not confirm read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. The return value is ambiguously described as 'Status server'.

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?

The description is very short with two sentences. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second line ('Returns: Status server') is somewhat redundant and could be integrated or expanded.

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?

Given no parameters but an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values extensively. However, it fails to provide any behavioral context (e.g., what the status indicates) or usage context alongside sibling tools, making it minimally complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no additional param context is required.

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 'Cek status server' which clearly indicates the tool checks server status. However, it is vague about what exactly 'Status server' entails, and it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'tanya_pdp' beyond implied resource difference.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

tanya_pdpC

Menjawab pertanyaan tentang UU PDP.

Args: pertanyaan: Pertanyaan tentang UU PDP

Returns: Jawaban

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pertanyaanYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions it returns an answer, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or return format. The output schema exists but is not described.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose but lacks depth, making it minimally acceptable.

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 a simple tool with one parameter, the description should be complete. However, it omits expected input format, language, and response structure. The output schema exists but is not explained, leaving the agent uncertain.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the parameter name ('pertanyaan: Pertanyaan tentang UU PDP') without adding meaningful constraints, format, or examples. This adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 tool answers questions about UU PDP (Indonesian Data Protection Law), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'server_status', though the domains are different.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without usage direction.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedserver_status
    • First observedtanya_pdp
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one checks server status, the other answers questions about PDP law. There is no overlap or confusion possible.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tools use snake_case, but 'server_status' is noun_noun while 'tanya_pdp' is verb_noun. Also, one is in English and the other in Indonesian, a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin. While it might be acceptable for a very narrow purpose, typically a PDP law server would need more tools for comprehensive coverage.

Completeness2/5

The server only offers server status and Q&A. Missing essential operations like searching articles, listing definitions, or providing document references, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-rag-server

    kwanLeeFrmVi
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that indexes documents and serves relevant context to LLMs via Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG).
    48
    37
    MIT

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/VibeCoding4-JC/pdp-mcp-server'

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