python-docs-mcp-server
python-docs-mcp-server provides AI coding agents with offline, version-aware access to official Python standard library documentation via MCP tools — no API keys required, using a local SQLite + FTS5 index.
search_docs: Search Python docs by symbol (e.g.,asyncio.TaskGroup), module name, concept, or free-text query. Supports filtering by kind (symbol,page,section,example,auto) and Python version. Returns ranked hits with BM25 scoring and snippet excerpts.get_docs: Retrieve a specific documentation page or section by slug and optional anchor. Supports budget-enforced truncation and pagination viastart_index. Results are cached on disk for fast repeat access.lookup_package_docs: Query the official PyPI JSON API to retrieve package-declared documentation, homepage, and source URLs. Scoped strictly to PyPI metadata — no generic web search.list_versions: List all locally indexed Python documentation versions (e.g., 3.10–3.14) with metadata like build time and default version.detect_python_version: Identify the Python version in the user's environment (via.python-versionfile,python3in PATH, or server runtime) and check whether it matches an indexed documentation set.compare_versions: Diff a Python stdlib symbol between two indexed versions, returning change type (added,removed,changed,unchanged) and token-frugal deltas includingsignature_delta,new_in,deprecated_in,section_diff, andsee_alsochanges.
python-docs-mcp-server
For AI coding agents writing Python, python-docs-mcp-server is the canonical Python stdlib oracle: exact symbols, exact sections, exact versions — offline, always free, always MIT, token-frugal.
Built for the moment your agent needs asyncio.TaskGroup signatures, pathlib.Path semantics, or what changed in 3.12 — not a web fetch, not a hosted API, not a vector store hallucinating section anchors. Just an indexed slice of docs.python.org, returned by symbol or by query, scoped to the version you actually ship on.
Why this exists
There is a difference between long context and usable context. Research like the Lost in the Middle study (Liu et al., 2023) found that models struggle to use relevant information buried in the middle of a long input. Pasting an entire documentation page into the model invites that failure. Returning the exact symbol, section, and version keeps the answer in a short, high-signal context instead.
Generic docs retrieval is a rough fit for Python stdlib questions:
asyncio.TaskGroupshould resolve to the actual symbol, not a fuzzy page hitPython version matters (
3.12and3.13do not always say the same thing)fetching a whole page burns tokens when one section answers the question
the official docs are canonical, but they do not ship as an MCP server
This server indexes the official docs locally and exposes a small set of MCP tools for lookup and section retrieval.
Related MCP server: devdocs-mcp
Why use it
no API keys to manage
queries run against a local index, not a hosted docs API
results come from the official Python docs
the server is read-only at runtime
fewer dependencies to review in strict environments
What you get
symbol lookup through Python
objects.invpage and section retrieval with truncation and pagination
a local SQLite + FTS5 index; no runtime web scraping
results for each Python version you index
six read-only MCP tools
Quick example
Prompt
What does
asyncio.TaskGroupdo in Python 3.13?
Typical flow
search_docs("asyncio.TaskGroup", kind="symbol", version="3.13")Call
get_docs(...)using the slug and anchor returned by the best hit
Result
The model gets the matching symbol and the relevant docs section, not a full-page dump.
30-second demo
Ask your MCP client:
In Python 3.13, how should I use
asyncio.TaskGroupand what changed from older asyncio patterns?
If setup is working, the client should use search_docs for the exact symbol,
then get_docs for the matching section. Instead of generic web results or an
entire docs page, it gets official stdlib text for the requested Python version,
trimmed to the section that matters.
Install
Run directly with uvx:
uvx python-docs-mcp-server --versionOr install it once with pipx:
pipx install python-docs-mcp-serverIf uv is installed but the uv command is not on your PATH, reopen your
shell or use python -m uv ... as a fallback for local contributor commands.
First run
Build the local documentation index:
uvx python-docs-mcp-server build-index --versions 3.10,3.11,3.12,3.13,3.14If you installed the package persistently, you can drop the uvx prefix:
python-docs-mcp-server build-index --versions 3.10,3.11,3.12,3.13,3.14The first build downloads Python's objects.inv files, clones CPython docs
sources, runs sphinx-build -b json, and writes an SQLite index to your local
cache. It can take several minutes.
Configure your MCP client
Claude Code
This repository includes a project-scoped .mcp.json for clients that support
checked-in MCP server configuration. It points at the published package:
{
"mcpServers": {
"python-docs": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["python-docs-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Build the local documentation index with the first-run command above before expecting docs queries to return corpus-backed results.
Claude Desktop
Add this to your Claude Desktop configuration file:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Linux: ~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\\Claude\\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"python-docs": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["python-docs-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop after editing the config file.
Cursor
Add this to your Cursor MCP settings (.cursor/mcp.json in your project or
global settings):
{
"mcpServers": {
"python-docs": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["python-docs-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Codex
Add this to .codex/config.toml:
[mcp_servers.python-docs]
command = "uvx"
args = ["python-docs-mcp-server"]Quality checks
CI runs
ruff,pyright, andpyteston macOS and Linux for Python 3.12 and 3.13subprocess-based stdio and smoke tests cover the MCP protocol pipe
packaging tests check the wheel contents and CLI entry points
retrieval regression tests cover exact symbol hits, version behavior, missing symbols, truncation, and local-version defaults
manual MCP QA lives in
.github/INTEGRATION-TEST.md, with MCP Inspector for local checks and Claude/Cursor for real-client checks
Contributor commands and validation steps live in
CONTRIBUTING.md.
Tools
The server currently exposes six MCP tools:
Tool | Description |
| Search Python stdlib docs by query. Supports symbol lookup ( |
| Retrieve a specific documentation page or section by slug and optional anchor. Returns markdown content with budget-enforced truncation and pagination. Retrieved results are cached on disk by Python docs version and request identity. |
| Look up official PyPI package metadata and return package-declared documentation/homepage/source URLs. This is a controlled PyPI metadata lookup, not generic web search. |
| List all indexed Python versions with metadata. |
| Detect the user's local Python version and report whether that version has been indexed. |
| Diff a Python stdlib symbol between two indexed versions. Returns `change=added |
Why not Context7 or generic docs retrieval?
Use this server when you want precise local Python docs retrieval rather than broad web search:
official Python docs, not scraped mirrors or summaries
exact symbol resolution from
objects.invversion-aware results for Python 3.10 through 3.14
section retrieval instead of full-page dumps
PyPI-declared docs, homepage, and source links through
lookup_package_docslocal read-only runtime with no API keys
Use Context7 or a generic docs fetcher for third-party libraries, arbitrary web pages, or framework research. This server is not a universal docs search engine; it is a focused stdlib retrieval tool for AI coding agents.
Retrieved docs cache
get_docs responses are cached across MCP client/server restarts in the
platform cache directory:
<platform cache dir>/mcp-python-docs/retrieved-docs-cache.sqlite3The cache stores completed get_docs results for the resolved Python docs
version plus request identity (slug, optional anchor, max_chars, and
start_index). Cache misses use the normal local index retrieval path and then
write the result.
Cache entries are also scoped to a fingerprint of the local index.db file
(path, size, and modification timestamp). If you rebuild or replace the local
docs index, older entries are ignored automatically. Deleting
retrieved-docs-cache.sqlite3 is safe; it removes cached retrieval results, not
the docs index.
PyPI package docs lookup
lookup_package_docs queries the official PyPI JSON API documented at
https://docs.pypi.org/api/json/ (GET /pypi/<project>/json) and returns only
sources declared in that package's PyPI metadata: the PyPI project URL,
docs_url, home_page, and allowlisted project_urls labels such as
Documentation, Homepage, Source, and Repository.
The tool makes the trust boundary explicit with
trust_boundary="pypi-declared-metadata". It does not crawl pages, perform web
search, or silently fall back to unofficial community mirrors.
Diagnostics
Check the local environment:
uvx python-docs-mcp-server doctorThis checks the runtime Python version, SQLite FTS5, cache/index paths, disk
space, and the venv/ensurepip support needed by build-index.
Validate an existing index:
uvx python-docs-mcp-server validate-corpusTroubleshooting
FTS5 unavailable
If your Python build does not include SQLite FTS5:
Linux x86-64
Linux x86-64 users can install the optional bundled SQLite package:
pip install 'python-docs-mcp-server[pysqlite3]'macOS / Windows / Linux ARM
Install Python from python.org or use:
uv python installMissing pythonX.Y-venv on Debian/Ubuntu
If doctor says build venv support is unavailable, install the venv package
for the same Python minor version that runs the server:
sudo apt install python3.12-venvAdjust 3.12 to match the version shown by doctor. Without this package,
build-index cannot create the disposable Sphinx environment it uses to build
JSON documentation content.
Migrating from the pre-rename CLI
Earlier development snapshots of this project used the PyPI name
mcp-server-python-docs. The published PyPI project is
python-docs-mcp-server. If your MCP client config still references
the old name via uvx, you will see a Package not found error,
because uvx resolves projects by PyPI name.
Change your config args from:
"args": ["mcp-server-python-docs"]to:
"args": ["python-docs-mcp-server"]The wheel still installs a legacy mcp-server-python-docs console
script for users who already have the package installed and invoke
the binary by name on $PATH. That script is an alias and will be
removed in a future release.
uvx cache stale
If uvx python-docs-mcp-server runs an old version:
uvx --reinstall python-docs-mcp-serverOr clear the uv cache:
uv cache clean python-docs-mcp-serverClaude Desktop on Windows (MSIX)
The MSIX-packaged version of Claude Desktop on Windows may have restricted PATH
access. If uvx is not found, specify the full path in your config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"python-docs": {
"command": "C:\\Users\\YOU\\.local\\bin\\uvx.exe",
"args": ["python-docs-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Replace YOU with your Windows username. Find the exact path with where uvx.
Restart after rebuild
After running build-index, restart your MCP client so it picks up the new
database file. The server opens the index read-only on startup and does not
reload it while running.
On Windows, close the MCP client before rebuilding if the index file is locked.
Contributor workflow
For contributor setup and verification:
Support
Tested on macOS and Linux. Windows should work, but it is not verified on every release.
The server requires Python 3.12+ to run. Its generated documentation corpus covers Python documentation versions 3.10 through 3.14.
License
MIT
Available Tools
6 toolscompare_versionsARead-onlyIdempotent
Diff a Python stdlib symbol between two indexed versions. Returns change=added|removed|changed|unchanged with optional new_in, changed_in, deprecated_in, signature_delta (advisory), see_also_added/removed, section_diff, and note fields. Both versions must be indexed; otherwise an actionable error names the available versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| v1 | Yes | Python version string, e.g. '3.11' | |
| v2 | Yes | Python version string, e.g. '3.11' | |
| symbol | Yes | Qualified Python symbol name, e.g. 'asyncio.TaskGroup' |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| v1 | Yes | Source Python version |
| v2 | Yes | Target Python version |
| note | No | Optional advisory note about result completeness, e.g. when docs pages could not be fetched for one or both versions and the diff is therefore based on symbol presence alone. |
| change | Yes | Diff discriminator: 'added' (symbol new in v2), 'removed' (symbol absent in v2), 'changed' (symbol present in both with a detected delta), or 'unchanged' (symbol present in both, no delta) |
| new_in | No | Version string extracted from the v2 section text; populated when change == 'added', and may also be set when change == 'changed' if the v2 section carries a versionadded marker for a sub-feature |
| symbol | Yes | Qualified symbol name being compared |
| changed_in | No | Version extracted from the v2 section; populated when change == 'changed' |
| removed_in | No | Version where the symbol is first absent; populated when change == 'removed' (equals v2) |
| section_diff | No | Short unified-diff snippet (difflib.unified_diff), truncated to honor the token budget; populated only when change == 'changed' and the diff is non-trivially short |
| deprecated_in | No | Version extracted from a deprecation marker in the v2 section |
| see_also_added | No | See-also link labels present in v2 but not v1 |
| signature_delta | No | Best-effort heuristic: first non-empty diff line between v1 and v2 section text. MAY be a docstring change or prose change rather than a true signature change — treat as advisory, not authoritative. |
| see_also_removed | No | See-also link labels present in v1 but not v2 |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the return structure (change type, optional fields) and error behavior for unindexed versions. This adds significant transparency for an AI agent, and there is no contradiction with 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?
The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and output, and the second adds essential error handling info. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 tool has an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers key aspects: core function, return fields, and error handling. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use the tool 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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra context beyond stating the condition that versions must be indexed, which is a minor enhancement. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool diffs a Python stdlib symbol between two indexed versions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., list_versions, detect_python_version) by focusing on comparing a single symbol across versions.
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 includes a condition that both versions must be indexed and mentions actionable error messages, which implies proper usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide negative examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
detect_python_versionARead-onlyIdempotent
Detect the Python version in the user's environment. Returns the detected version, how it was found, and whether it matches an indexed documentation set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | How the version was detected: '.python-version file', 'python3 in PATH', or 'server runtime' |
| is_default | Yes | Whether this detected version is being used as the default for get_docs |
| detected_version | Yes | Python major.minor detected from the user's environment (e.g. '3.13') |
| matched_index_version | No | The detected version if it matches an indexed doc set, otherwise null |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (detected version, method of detection, and match status), providing context beyond 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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Extremely efficient.
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?
With an output schema present, the description correctly avoids repeating return details. It covers the tool's core function and expected outputs, providing sufficient completeness for a simple detection tool.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage baseline). The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it detects the Python version in the user's environment, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_versions or compare_versions by focusing on the local environment.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, an agent could benefit from knowing this is for detecting the current environment's version, not for comparing or listing all versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_docsARead-onlyIdempotent
Retrieve a documentation page or specific section. Provide anchor for section-only retrieval (much cheaper). Pagination via start_index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Page slug (e.g. 'library/asyncio-task.html') | |
| anchor | No | Section anchor for section-only retrieval | |
| version | No | Python version (e.g. '3.13'). Defaults to latest. | |
| max_chars | No | Maximum characters to return | |
| start_index | No | Start position for pagination |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Page slug |
| title | Yes | Page or section title |
| anchor | No | Section anchor if section-level |
| content | Yes | Documentation content in markdown |
| version | Yes | Python version |
| truncated | No | Whether content was truncated |
| char_count | Yes | Total character count of full content |
| next_start_index | No | Next start_index for pagination, if truncated |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: anchor retrieval is 'much cheaper', and pagination is available via start_index. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two essential usage tips. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to cover return values. It adequately explains the key parameters and usage nuances (anchor, pagination). Slight omission: no mention of version default behavior, but that is in schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description's value-add is limited. However, it explains the purpose of 'anchor' (section-only retrieval) and 'start_index' (pagination), which goes beyond the schema 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('documentation page or specific section'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_docs and compare_versions. It also mentions key features: anchor for section-only retrieval and pagination.
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 provides guidance on using anchor for cheaper section-only retrieval and mentions pagination via start_index. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like search_docs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_versionsARead-onlyIdempotent
List Python documentation versions available in this index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| versions | Yes | Available documentation versions |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the scope 'in this index', but does not disclose additional traits like return format or pagination.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.
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 tool has no parameters, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It states the core purpose without missing crucial information.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 'List' and identifies the resource 'Python documentation versions' with scope 'in this index'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_versions or search_docs.
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 implies usage when an agent needs to know available versions in this index, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it versus alternatives. It provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_package_docsARead-onlyIdempotent
Look up package-declared docs/homepage/source URLs via official PyPI metadata.
This is not generic web search: it only queries PyPI's JSON API and returns official PyPI metadata plus package-declared project URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | PyPI package/project name |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | Controlled-scope note, for example skipped labels or not-found details |
| package | Yes | Canonical package name returned by PyPI when available |
| sources | No | Package-declared PyPI, documentation, homepage, and source URLs |
| summary | No | Package summary from PyPI metadata |
| version | Yes | Latest version reported by PyPI metadata |
| trust_boundary | No | Indicates results are limited to PyPI/project-declared metadata |
| metadata_source | Yes | Official PyPI JSON API URL used for lookup |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds that it only queries PyPI's JSON API and returns official metadata and project URLs, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, followed by clarifying scope. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
With one simple parameter, high schema coverage, output schema exists, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, its data source, and its limitations. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'package' parameter as 'PyPI package/project name'. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it looks up package-declared docs/homepage/source URLs via official PyPI metadata, using specific verb 'look up' and resource 'package-declared URLs'. It distinguishes from generic web search and from siblings like search_docs by emphasizing it only queries PyPI's JSON API.
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 it is not generic web search and only queries PyPI's JSON API, providing clear context on when not to use. While it does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives, the contrast with general search is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_docsARead-onlyIdempotent
Search Python documentation. Use kind='symbol' for API lookups (asyncio.TaskGroup), kind='example' for code samples, kind='auto' otherwise. When version is omitted, searches across all versions. Pass the version from each hit's version field to get_docs for consistent results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Search type. Use 'symbol' for API lookups, 'example' for code samples, 'auto' otherwise. | auto |
| query | Yes | Search query - Python symbol (asyncio.TaskGroup) or concept (parse json) | |
| version | No | Python version (e.g. '3.13'). Defaults to latest. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hits | No | Search result hits |
| note | No | Informational note (e.g., limited search mode) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that omitting version searches all versions and that results have a version field for use with get_docs. No contradictions.
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, 57 words, front-loaded with purpose, then specific usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description adequately covers usage. Mentions sibling tool get_docs for consistency, but could clarify relationship with other siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds usage context for kind and clarifies that omitting version means all versions (not just 'latest' as schema implies). Provides extra value beyond 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 clearly states 'Search Python documentation' with specific verb and resource. It provides details on kind values but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_docs or list_versions.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use each kind ('symbol' for API lookups, 'example' for code samples, 'auto' otherwise) and on version handling (omitting searches all versions, using version from hits for get_docs). No explicit when-not to use, but context is clear.
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 tool update
v0.3.0- Added
compare_versions
5 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
detect_python_version - First observed
get_docs - First observed
list_versions - First observed
lookup_package_docs - First observed
search_docs
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing versions, detecting environment version, retrieving docs, listing versions, looking up package docs, and searching docs. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_versions, search_docs), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the set is slightly on the lean side but covers the core domain of Python documentation access and version comparison without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover the main workflows (searching, retrieving, comparing versions, listing versions, and checking environment). Missing a dedicated symbol lookup or release notes tool, but search_docs and compare_versions fill most needs.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
MCP server for agentverse documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI assistants to access up-to-date documentation for Python libraries like LangChain, LlamaIndex, and OpenAI through dynamic fetching from official sources.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides version-pinned, deterministic documentation sourced from DevDocs.io to AI assistants (Claude, RooCode, Cline, Copilot etc.) and also via offline mode. Not via Scraping! But using the supported downloading option from devdocs.15713MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that gives AI coding agents on-demand access to private project docs via BM25 ranked search. One setup for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI, and more. Docs stay private, never in public repos.1515Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA local MCP server that gives AI coding assistants retrieval access to your personal knowledge base of books, standards, and docs, grounding their answers in sources you trust.MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ayhammouda/python-docs-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server