Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP Documentation Server search for how to implement tools in MCP"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive access to MCP documentation, guides, and development workflows through a standardized interface.
This MCP server provides comprehensive documentation access through:
mcp_docs_guide: Structured guides for MCP development topics
search_docs: Full-text search across all MCP documentation
get_docs_by_category: Browse documentation by category
Interactive workflows for MCP development:
mcp_quick_start: Get started quickly with MCP development
server_development_workflow: Complete server development workflow
client_integration_guide: Guide for integrating MCP into applications
troubleshooting_workflow: Systematic troubleshooting guide
deployment_guide: Production deployment best practices
Direct access to individual documentation files:
mcp-docs://filename.md: Access any documentation file directly
Organized by category with rich metadata
Full markdown content with proper formatting
Related MCP server: devdocs-mcp
npm install -g mcp-docs-serverAdd to your Claude Desktop configuration (~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-docs": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-docs-server"]
}
}
}# Clone and setup
git clone <repository-url>
cd mcp-docs-server
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Run locally
npm run dev
# Test with MCP Inspector
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector npm run dev# Ask for getting started guide
mcp_docs_guide("getting_started")
# Quick start workflow
mcp_quick_start()# Search for specific topics
search_docs("tools development")
search_docs("JSON-RPC protocol", "specification")
# Browse by category
get_docs_by_category("concepts")
get_docs_by_category("development")# Server development workflow
server_development_workflow("tool", "python")
# Client integration guide
client_integration_guide("desktop")
# Troubleshooting
troubleshooting_workflow("connection")# Access specific documentation files
Resource: mcp-docs://docs-getting-started-intro.md
Resource: mcp-docs://docs-learn-architecture.md
Resource: mcp-docs://docs-develop-build-server.mdThe server organizes MCP documentation into these categories:
š getting_started: Introduction and basic concepts
š§ concepts: Architecture, primitives, and design principles
š ļø development: Building servers and clients
š specification: Technical protocol details
š§ tools: Development tools and debugging
š„ community: Governance and contribution guidelines
Start with mcp_quick_start() for overview
Use mcp_docs_guide("getting_started") for structured introduction
Follow server_development_workflow() to build first server
Use search_docs() to find specific implementation details
Use search_docs() to find specific information
Access documentation resources directly via URIs
Reference troubleshooting_workflow() when issues arise
Use deployment_guide() for production deployment
Start with client_integration_guide() for your platform
Use get_docs_by_category("development") for implementation details
Reference protocol specification via get_docs_by_category("specification")
Use debugging tools and workflows as needed
The server follows the same patterns as other MCP servers:
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
ā AI Application ā
ā āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā ā
ā ā MCP Client ā ā
ā āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
ā
ā¼
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
ā MCP Docs Server ā
ā ā
ā š Documentation Database ā
ā š Search Engine ā
ā šÆ Guided Workflows ā
ā š Resource Access ā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāDocumentation Engine: Processes and categorizes scraped MCP docs
Search System: Full-text search with relevance ranking
Guide Generator: Creates structured learning workflows
Resource Provider: Serves individual documentation files
Prompt System: Interactive development workflows
mcp-docs-server/
āāā src/
ā āāā index.ts # Main server entry point
ā āāā tools/ # MCP tools implementation
ā ā āāā mcpDocsGuide.ts # Main documentation guide
ā ā āāā searchDocs.ts # Documentation search
ā ā āāā getDocsByCategory.ts # Category browsing
ā āāā prompts/ # Interactive workflows
ā ā āāā index.ts # Prompt registry
ā ā āāā quickStartGuide.ts
ā ā āāā serverDevelopmentWorkflow.ts
ā ā āāā clientIntegrationGuide.ts
ā ā āāā troubleshootingWorkflow.ts
ā ā āāā deploymentGuide.ts
ā āāā resources/ # Resource access
ā āāā index.ts # Documentation file access
āāā scraped_docs/ # MCP documentation files
āāā package.json
āāā tsconfig.json
āāā README.mdAdd markdown files to scraped_docs/ directory
Files are automatically categorized and indexed
Search and resource access work immediately
No server restart required
Fork the repository
Create a feature branch
Make your changes
Add tests if applicable
Submit a pull request
# Check TypeScript compilation
npm run build
# Test directly
node build/index.js
# Check with inspector
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node build/index.jsCheck configuration syntax in claude_desktop_config.json
Use absolute paths if needed
Restart Claude Desktop completely
Check Claude logs: ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp.log
Verify scraped_docs/ directory exists
Check file permissions
Ensure markdown files are present
Check server logs for errors
Get structured guides for MCP development topics.
Parameters:
topic (required): Topic to get guidance on
getting_started: Introduction and basics
building_servers: Server development guide
building_clients: Client development guide
core_concepts: Architecture and primitives
tools_and_resources: Deep dive into tools and resources
protocol_specification: Technical protocol details
troubleshooting: Common issues and solutions
best_practices: Development best practices
examples_and_tutorials: Complete examples
Search through MCP documentation using keywords.
Parameters:
query (required): Search query string
category (optional): Limit search to specific category
Browse documentation organized by category.
Parameters:
category (required): Documentation category to explore
All documentation files are available as resources with URI format:
mcp-docs://filename.md
Example resources:
mcp-docs://docs-getting-started-intro.md
mcp-docs://docs-learn-architecture.md
mcp-docs://docs-develop-build-server.md
MIT License - see LICENSE file for details.
Issues: Report bugs and feature requests on GitHub
Documentation: Use the server itself to explore MCP documentation
Community: Join MCP community discussions
Contributing: See CONTRIBUTING.md for guidelines
Built with ā¤ļø for the MCP community
Get documentation organized by category. Returns structured overview of available documentation in each area.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | The documentation category to explore |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'structured overview,' which hints at the output format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'get' but not confirmed).
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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.
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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output hint, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
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%, with the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema, including its enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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's purpose: 'Get documentation organized by category' specifies the verb (get) and resource (documentation). It distinguishes from 'search_docs' by focusing on categorical retrieval rather than keyword search, though differentiation from 'mcp_docs_guide' is less explicit.
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 this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'Returns structured overview of available documentation in each area,' which implies a browsing use case, but it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'search_docs' or 'mcp_docs_guide'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get comprehensive guides and documentation for Model Context Protocol development. Covers getting started, building servers/clients, core concepts, and best practices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The documentation topic you'd like guidance on |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] comprehensive guides and documentation,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits such as response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose in the first sentence and additional context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the tool's function and coverage areas, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal clarity.
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's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively, especially without annotations or output 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a well-documented 'topic' parameter including an enum list. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying coverage of topics like 'getting started' and 'core concepts,' which are already in the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.
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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive guides and documentation for Model Context Protocol development.' It specifies the resource (guides/documentation) and scope (MCP development). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'search_docs' beyond mentioning coverage areas, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions coverage areas (e.g., 'getting started, building servers/clients') but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'search_docs'. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search through MCP documentation using keywords or phrases. Returns relevant documentation sections with context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query - keywords, phrases, or specific concepts to find in the documentation | |
| category | No | Optional: limit search to specific documentation category | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('relevant documentation sections with context') but lacks details on aspects like pagination, sorting, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., search scope or limitations). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that state the action and outcome without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or sibling tools.
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's moderate complexity (search functionality with two parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks completeness in behavioral details (e.g., how results are formatted or limited), which is needed for effective agent use.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'category') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of effective queries or category usage, but meets the baseline since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('MCP documentation'), and indicates what it returns ('relevant documentation sections with context'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_docs_by_category' or 'mcp_docs_guide' beyond the search functionality.
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 for finding documentation sections based on keywords or phrases, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools ('get_docs_by_category', 'mcp_docs_guide'), such as for general searches versus category-specific retrieval or guided navigation.
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.
get_docs_by_categorymcp_docs_guidesearch_docsThe tools have some overlap in purpose, as both get_docs_by_category and mcp_docs_guide retrieve documentation content, which could cause confusion. However, search_docs is distinct with its keyword-based functionality, and descriptions help clarify that get_docs_by_category provides structured overviews while mcp_docs_guide offers comprehensive guides, mitigating ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: get_docs_by_category uses snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, mcp_docs_guide uses snake_case but lacks a clear verb, and search_docs uses snake_case with a verb_noun pattern. The lack of a uniform verb style and the inclusion of 'mcp' in one tool name disrupt predictability.
With 3 tools, the count is borderline thin for a documentation server, as it might lack operations like updating or deleting documentation. However, it covers basic retrieval and search, which could be sufficient for a minimal scope, placing it in the middle range.
For a documentation server, the tools provide good coverage with retrieval by category, comprehensive guides, and search functionality, allowing agents to access and find documentation effectively. Minor gaps exist, such as no update or management tools, but core workflows are well-supported.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for developer documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
MCP server for dev documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
MCP server for doc2mcp documentation, generated by doc2mcp.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/glassBead-tc/mcp-docs-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
