What can you do with this server?

This server provides a read-only interface to a how-to documentation portal, secured by bearer-token authentication and strict permission enforcement. Capabilities include: * Search articles: Full-text search with relevance ranking across all accessible repositories; supports optional repository filtering and a limit (1–50, default 10). * Read an article: Retrieve the full content of a specific article by repository and slug. * List repositories: View accessible repositories along with their article counts. All operations respect user permissions; inaccessible content is hidden and errors deliberately mimic non-existence to avoid information leakage.

How do I use howto-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@howto-mcp What articles are there about rate limiting?" 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.

howto-mcp

by stonedog-code

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

@stonedogcode/howto-mcp

A Model Context Protocol server for a how-to documentation portal. Ask what has been written, and read it, without leaving your editor.

> What articles exist about authentication?

3 articles match "authentication".

## Signing in with a passkey
repository: Alpha · slug: signing-in-with-a-passkey
written for: Support (as labelled by its source)
matched headings: Registering a device
…

It contains no documentation of its own, and no permission model. It asks a portal, and the portal answers as the user whose token it holds.

Install

npm install -g @stonedogcode/howto-mcp

Or run it without installing, which is what most MCP clients do:

npx @stonedogcode/howto-mcp

Related MCP server: MCP Documentation Server

Before you configure it

The portal has to be running and reachable from this machine. This server is a client and holds nothing of its own, so a portal that is down looks exactly like a server that is broken.

Check it first, so a later failure has one fewer possible cause:

curl -s https://howto.example.com/api/health
# {"status":"ok", … ,"database":"ok"}

status: degraded means the portal is up but its database is not. Fix that before going further — search will fail and the error will point here.

And you need a token. Your portal issues them; how depends on the portal. Whatever the mechanism, the token is shown once and stored hashed, so keep it when it is printed. See "The token is an identity, not a key" below before choosing whose it is.

Configure

Two environment variables, both required. The server refuses to start without them rather than failing every request afterwards — a server that starts and then refuses everything looks like a broken portal.


`HOWTO_PORTAL_URL`	Base URL of your portal, e.g. `https://howto.example.com`
`HOWTO_API_TOKEN`	A token issued by that portal

Claude Code

claude mcp add howto --scope user \
  --env HOWTO_PORTAL_URL=https://howto.example.com \
  --env HOWTO_API_TOKEN=… \
  -- npx -y @stonedogcode/howto-mcp

--scope user registers it for every project rather than the directory you happen to be in. Documentation is not project-specific, and a server registered in one checkout is invisible from the next one — which reads as the server having stopped working.

Then confirm it, rather than assuming:

claude mcp list
# howto: npx -y @stonedogcode/howto-mcp - ✔ Connected

✔ Connected means the server started and answered. It does not mean the token is good — that is not checked until the first search, by design, because the portal is the thing that decides.

Restart Claude Code before expecting the tools in a session that was already open. Then ask it something:

What articles exist about authentication?

Any client that takes a JSON config

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "howto": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@stonedogcode/howto-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "HOWTO_PORTAL_URL": "https://howto.example.com",
        "HOWTO_API_TOKEN": "…"
      }
    }
  }
}

When it does not work

The failures are deliberately hard to tell apart from the outside — that is the access model working, not a bad error message — so here is what each one means.

What you see	What it is
`HOWTO_PORTAL_URL is not set`	The variable did not reach the process. Client configs vary in whether they inherit your shell; set it in the config, not your profile.
`The portal could not be reached.`	Wrong URL, portal down, or a network path that does not exist from here. Try the `curl` above from the same machine.
`The portal did not accept the configured token.`	The token is wrong, revoked, or belongs to a deleted user. Issue a new one; the old value cannot be recovered.
`No articles match "…"`	The search ran and its user may read nothing that matches. This is also what you get when the token's user has no grants at all — see below.
`There are no repositories available to this token.`	The token is valid and its user has been granted nothing. Someone with admin rights on the portal grants repositories.

The last two are worth reading twice: a working setup with no access looks almost exactly like a working setup with nothing to find. If list_repos is empty, the problem is grants, not configuration.

The token is an identity, not a key

This server reads exactly what its token's user reads — no more. It performs no access check of its own, deliberately: a second permission model beside the portal's would be a second answer to the same question, and the two drift. A client-side check that says yes when the server would say no is how a tool ends up showing somebody something.

So the way to scope this server is to choose whose token it is. Issue it to a user with the narrowest access that still makes the archive useful to you, and revoke it when that person's access changes.

The token is long-lived and sits in a config file on disk. Treat it as you would any credential in one.

Tools

`search_articles`

Search across every repository the token may read. Ranked by relevance — titles outrank summaries, which outrank headings, which outrank prose — and every word in the query must appear, so adding a word narrows the results.

Argument
`query`	required	What to look for
`limit`	optional	Default 10, maximum 50
`repo`	optional	Restrict to one repository by name

`get_article`

Read one article in full, by the repository and slug that search returned.

`list_repos`

The repositories this token may read, and how many articles each holds.

What it will not tell you

Three things, on purpose, because a documentation tool that is careless here is worse than none:

It never reports what it could not see. No "3 of 40 match" — that would disclose that 37 exist. The portal declines to mention them; repeating a total would undo that.
A missing article and a forbidden one give the same answer. Two different answers let a caller map what exists by guessing.
Errors carry no internals. Not the URL, not the token, not the portal's own error text, not a stack. Error messages are where internal detail escapes most easily, because whoever writes one is debugging at the time.

Each of those has a test asserting it, including one that fails if an error message ever repeats the token or the host.

Requirements

Node 20 or newer, and a portal exposing /api/search, /api/articles/… and /api/repos with bearer-token authentication.

Licence

Apache-2.0. See LICENSE and NOTICE.

Available Tools

3 tools

get_articleRead a how-to articleA

Read one article in full, by the repository and slug that search_articles returned. Refuses identically whether the article does not exist or the token's user may not read it.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name, as returned by search
`slug`	Yes	Article slug, as returned by search

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: refusal is identical whether the article does not exist or the user lacks read permission, which prevents information leakage. It does not mention error return format or permissions, but the security behavior is valuable and goes beyond a bare 'read' statement.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and input source, the second states a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, and the verb is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with two params and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and an important error behavior. It does not describe the response format or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the input provenance is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that repo and slug come from search_articles, which adds slight context beyond the schema's 'as returned by search' but does not provide new meaning. No additional parameter semantics are given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one article in full'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it operates on a repository and slug returned by search_articles. This unambiguously differentiates it from search_articles (search) and list_repos (list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage after search_articles by specifying the inputs are what search_articles returned, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

list_reposList readable repositoriesA

The repositories this token may read, with how many articles each holds. Says nothing about repositories it may not read.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the list is restricted to readable repositories and explicitly excludes non-readable ones. It also mentions included data (article counts). No mention of error behavior or pagination, but for a simple read-only list, this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main return value (repositories and article counts) and explicitly states a limitation (no non-readable repos). Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, this is sufficient, though it could optionally mention output format or pagination.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states what the tool does: lists repositories readable by the token, with article counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search_articles, get_article) which focus on articles rather than repos. Scope is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use when you need to know which repositories the token can read and their article counts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. No wrong-usage guidance, but also no explicit 'when-not-to-use'.

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

search_articlesSearch how-to articlesA

Search the how-to documentation across every repository this token may read. Ranked by relevance: titles outrank summaries, which outrank headings, which outrank prose. Every word in the query must appear, so adding a word narrows the results. Returns only articles the token's user is entitled to read.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No	Restrict to one repository by name
`limit`	No	Maximum results (default 10, maximum 50)
`query`	Yes	What to look for, e.g. "authentication"

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses ranking logic (titles > summaries > headings > prose), strict word matching, and permission filtering (returns only entitled articles). It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but the mentioned behaviors are useful and not contradicting any annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: scope and verb, ranking behavior, and matching/permission constraints. There is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains scope, ranking, and filtering. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of article titles, summaries) or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for agents. The sibling tools and parameter schema help, but a slightly richer description would be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the query parameter's behavior (every word must appear, adding words narrows results), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'What to look for'. It doesn't add details for repo or limit but meaningfully enhances the query parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches how-to documentation across all readable repositories, using the specific verb 'Search' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_article (which likely retrieves a specific article) and list_repos (which lists repositories).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context on when to use it ('across every repository this token may read') and explains matching semantics (all query words must appear), which helps in selecting it. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the scope and behavior are clear enough. A stronger statement contrasting with get_article would merit a 5.

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.

3 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026
- First observedget_article
- First observedlist_repos
- First observedsearch_articles

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool performs a clearly distinct function: searching articles, retrieving a specific article, and listing accessible repositories. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern: search_articles, get_article, list_repos. Consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped, focused set for a read-only documentation server. Each tool is necessary and earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows of discovering and reading articles are covered. A potential minor gap is the inability to browse all articles in a repo without a search query, but search can handle most use cases.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

forkast-mcp-docs A
io.github.ForkastPredict
MCP server for querying Forkast documentation
Documentation Access Search Developer Tools
42
OrchestKit Docs MCP A
io.github.yonatangross
Read-only MCP server for the OrchestKit docs: full-text search + Markdown fetch. No auth.
Documentation Access Search
23186
selvo
io.github.selvoapp
Help center for SaaS teams. 14-tool MCP server for articles, collections, and search.
Customer Support Documentation Access Search
2
iknowOAuth
dev.iknow
Knowledge base MCP for AI agents on iknow.dev. Search, read, and maintain via OAuth.
Knowledge & Memory Search Documentation Access
1

Related MCP Servers

docs-mcp-server
Search Browser Automation
arabold
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that scrapes, indexes, and searches documentation for third-party software libraries and packages, supporting versioning and hybrid search.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-08-29 14:32 UTC)
3,262
1,711
MIT
MCP Documentation Server
Documentation Access Developer Tools
droidnext
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A server that provides organized documentation content for various applications using the Model Context Protocol, enabling AI assistants to access quickstart guides and code examples.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-15 02:37 UTC)
MIT
Documentation Search MCP
Documentation Access Search
gemini2026
A
license
C
quality
C
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables intelligent searching across documentation for 30+ programming libraries and frameworks, fetching relevant information from official sources.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-04-07 04:48 UTC)
23
8
MIT
ContextMCP
Documentation Access RAG Systems
dodopayments
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Self-hosted MCP server that indexes documentation from various sources and makes it searchable by AI assistants via the Model Context Protocol and REST API.
Updated 5 days ago (2026-09-01 19:40 UTC)
197
76
Apache 2.0

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/stonedog-code/stonedog-howto-mcp'

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