Skip to main content
Glama
mjpitz

RFC MCP Server

by mjpitz
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

RFC MCP Server

An MCP server for fetching, parsing, and reading RFCs from the ietf.org website. This server provides tools and resources to interact with RFC documents programmatically.

Features

  • Fetch RFC documents by number

  • Search for RFCs by keyword

  • Extract specific sections from RFC documents

  • Parse both HTML and TXT format RFCs

  • Caching for better performance

Related MCP server: rfc-server

Installation

Configure your MCP settings file to use the server:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "rfc-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@mjpitz/mcp-rfc"],
      "disabled": false,
      "autoApprove": []
    }
  }
}

Available Tools

get_rfc

Fetch an RFC document by its number.

Parameters:

  • number (string, required): RFC number (e.g. "2616")

  • format (string, optional): Output format (full, metadata, sections), default: "full"

Example:

{
  "number": "2616",
  "format": "metadata"
}

search_rfcs

Search for RFCs by keyword.

Parameters:

  • query (string, required): Search keyword or phrase

  • limit (number, optional): Maximum number of results to return, default: 10

Example:

{
  "query": "http protocol",
  "limit": 5
}

get_rfc_section

Get a specific section from an RFC.

Parameters:

  • number (string, required): RFC number (e.g. "2616")

  • section (string, required): Section title or number to retrieve

Example:

{
  "number": "2616",
  "section": "Introduction"
}

Available Resources

Resource Templates

  • rfc://{number}: Get an RFC document by its number

  • rfc://search/{query}: Search for RFCs by keyword

Development

  • Run in watch mode: npm run dev

  • Start the server: npm run start

License

This project is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 - see the LICENSE file for details.

Implementation Details

The server implements two main components:

  1. RFC Service: Handles fetching, parsing, and extracting data from RFCs

  2. MCP Server: Implements the MCP protocol and exposes tools and resources

The RFC service supports both HTML and TXT format RFCs, attempting to use HTML first for better structure, then falling back to TXT format if needed.

Available Tools

3 tools
get_rfcB

Fetch an RFC document by its number

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesRFC number (e.g. "2616")
formatNoOutput format (full, metadata, sections)full

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'fetch' entails (e.g., network call, cached data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important given the absence of annotations and output schema, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'number' parameter is used for fetching, which aligns with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('RFC document by its number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs', which prevents 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.

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 like 'get_rfc_section' or 'search_rfcs'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

get_rfc_sectionC

Get a specific section from an RFC

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYesRFC number (e.g. "2616")
sectionYesSection title or number to retrieve

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('number' and 'section'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of section formats or clarification on what constitutes a 'specific section'. With high schema coverage, 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific section from an RFC'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_rfc' (which likely retrieves entire RFCs) or 'search_rfcs' (which likely searches across RFCs), missing an opportunity for full differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings ('get_rfc' and 'search_rfcs'). It lacks any context about alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

search_rfcsC

Search for RFCs by keyword

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch keyword or phrase
limitNoMaximum number of results to return

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches by keyword but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, sorting, pagination), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Search for RFCs by keyword'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of RFCs with metadata), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a search tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full functionality.

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 description mentions searching 'by keyword', which aligns with the 'query' parameter in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') clearly. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search for RFCs by keyword'. It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('RFCs'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rfc' or 'get_rfc_section', which likely retrieve specific RFCs rather than searching across them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_rfc' or 'get_rfc_section', nor does it specify any context or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the name alone.

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. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_rfc
    • First observedget_rfc_section
    • First observedsearch_rfcs
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_rfc retrieves a full document, get_rfc_section extracts a specific part, and search_rfcs finds documents by keyword. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_rfc, get_rfc_section, search_rfcs). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing RFC documents. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects (fetching, sectioning, searching), and the count is appropriate without being too thin or heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core operations for RFC access: retrieving full documents, sections, and searching. A minor gap exists in lifecycle coverage, such as listing all RFCs or filtering by metadata, but agents can work around this with the provided tools.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

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-Server-IETF

    tizee
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enables Large Language Models to search and access IETF RFC documents with pagination support.
    3
    13
    MIT

  • rfc-server

    xiaobenyang-com
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server for obtaining, parsing and reading RFC documents from the ietf.org website, providing programmatic interactive tools.
    3
    2
    Apache 2.0

  • mcp-rfc-editor

    daedalus
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server for creating, loading, and editing RFC TXT documents using the rfc-editor Python library. It provides a suite of tools to manage document components including sections, abstracts, titles, and author metadata.
    29
    -

Appeared in Searches

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/mjpitz/mcp-rfc'

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