Add comprehensive Products section and reorganize documentation structure

[ramonpzg]

Summary

Comprehensive documentation update for Jan v0.6.6, adding MCP integration tutorials and updating llama.cpp documentation to reflect new backend capabilities.

What's New

📚 MCP Integration Tutorials

• Browserbase: Cloud browser automation with natural language
• Canva: Design creation and management through conversation
• Octagon: Finance-focused deep research capabilities

🔧 llama.cpp Documentation Update

• Added ~30 new advanced settings with explanations
• Documented backend selection dropdown
• Enhanced troubleshooting guides
• Added configuration examples for different hardware

📋 v0.6.6 Changelog

• Highlighted major llama.cpp backend improvements
• Documented Cortex → direct llama.cpp migration
• Added Hugging Face cloud router integration
• Listed platform-specific enhancements

Technical Details

• All MCP tutorials include real workflow examples with screenshots
• Each tutorial covers setup, usage, troubleshooting, and limitations
• llama.cpp settings grouped by category (performance, memory, advanced)

---

Important

This pull request updates the documentation for Jan v0.6.6, adding MCP integration tutorials, updating llama.cpp documentation, and reorganizing the documentation structure, along with some dependency and configuration updates.

• Documentation Updates:
  • Added comprehensive MCP integration tutorials for Browserbase, Canva, and Octagon.
  • Updated llama.cpp documentation with ~30 new settings, backend selection, troubleshooting guides, and hardware configuration examples.
  • Reorganized documentation structure, including a new Products section.
  • Updated v0.6.6 changelog with llama.cpp backend improvements and new integrations.
• Technical Changes:
  • Removed docs.schema.json, content.d.ts, and types.d.ts from docs/.astro.
  • Updated bun.lock with new dependencies and versions.
  • Changed Node.js version from 18 to 20 in jan-docs-new-release.yaml workflow.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Added astro-mermaid to package.json dependencies.
  • Updated theme.config.tsx to reflect new documentation paths and titles.

^{This description was created by for 0a63196. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[github-actions]

Preview URL: https://1bdc114f.docs-9ba.pages.dev

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 14804fc in 4 minutes and 48 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 3458 lines of code in 35 files
• Skipped 122 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 21 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/package.json:21

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the newly added 'astro-mermaid' dependency is compatible with the existing 'mermaid' version.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is about ensuring compatibility between dependencies, which falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or compatibility issues. The comment is asking the author to ensure compatibility, which is not allowed.

2. docs/src/pages/_meta.json:14

• Draft comment:
  New 'products' section added in meta; verify its placement and ordering in the sidebar is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the author to verify the placement and ordering of a new section, which is not allowed according to the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.

3. docs/src/pages/docs/api-server.mdx:36

• Draft comment:
  The quick start instructions for the API server are clear; ensure that the log message 'JAN API listening at http://127.0.0.1:1337' truly reflects the deployed endpoint configuration.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a log message reflects the deployed endpoint configuration. This falls under asking the author to ensure something, which is against the rules.

4. docs/src/pages/docs/server-settings.mdx:167

• Draft comment:
  The link directing users to the dedicated Local API Server settings page improves clarity. Verify that navigation meets user expectations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to verify that navigation meets user expectations, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

5. docs/src/pages/products/platforms/desktop.mdx:67

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'stives' should be corrected to 'strives'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

6. docs/src/pages/products/platforms/mobile.mdx:44

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Beta launchplanned for Q4 2025' is missing a space; it should read 'Beta launch planned for Q4 2025'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about the typo, the review rules emphasize focusing on logic issues rather than minor text issues. This is a documentation file and the typo is very minor - it doesn't affect functionality or readability significantly. The rules say to only keep comments that require clear code changes, but to avoid obvious or unimportant issues. The typo does make the text slightly less professional looking. Documentation quality could be considered important for user-facing content. However, this is such a minor issue that it barely impacts readability and could be caught in a basic editorial review. It's not worth the overhead of a PR comment. The comment should be removed as it points out an extremely minor documentation typo that doesn't significantly impact understanding or quality.

7. docs/theme.config.tsx:77

• Draft comment:
  In the sidebar configuration, both 'Jan Mobile' and 'Jan Server' use the path '/platforms'. Update these paths to reflect the correct routes (e.g., '/products/platforms/mobile' and '/products/platforms/server') for accurate navigation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While having two menu items point to the same path might seem unusual, there's no inherent technical problem with this. The author may intentionally want both items to link to a platforms overview page. Without seeing the actual '/platforms' page content or routing structure, we can't definitively say this is wrong. The change appears deliberate as part of a navigation restructuring. I might be overlooking a user experience issue where having two different menu items lead to the same place could be confusing. The suggested paths in the comment might reflect the actual intended structure. However, we don't have enough context to know if this is actually a problem or if it's intentional design. The author might want a platforms landing page that covers both mobile and server topics. The comment should be deleted as it makes assumptions about the intended routing structure without strong evidence that the current implementation is problematic.

8. docs/bun.lock:1306

• Draft comment:
  Typo alert: The dependency "flattie" may be a misspelling of "flatted". Please verify if this is intentional or should be corrected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

9. docs/bun.lock:1314

• Draft comment:
  Typo alert: The dependency "fontace" seems like it might be a typo (perhaps intended to be "fontface"?). Please confirm the correct package name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is incorrect. "fontace" is not a typo - it's a real package that's being added as a dependency. The comment author likely made an assumption without verifying if "fontace" is a legitimate package name. Lock files contain exact dependency specifications that come from package registries, so typos are very unlikely here. I should verify that "fontace" is actually a different package than "fontface" and that it serves a distinct purpose. Looking at the dependencies, "fontace" appears alongside other font-related packages like "@types/fontkit" and "fontkit", suggesting it's part of a legitimate font processing toolchain. The lock file format is also very strict about package names. The comment should be deleted as it incorrectly suggests there's a typo when "fontace" is actually the correct package name.

10. docs/bun.lock:3396

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The dependency key "devlop" appears to be a misspelling (possibly intended to be "develop"). This appears in several dependency blocks; please verify whether this is correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% This appears to be a false positive. "devlop" is actually a legitimate package name on npm (https://www.npmjs.com/package/devlop). It's not a typo - it's an intentionally named development utility package. The comment is making an incorrect assumption about a spelling error that doesn't exist. Could there be multiple versions of similar packages with different spellings that are causing confusion? Should we double check if any of the usages actually intended to use a different package? No - looking at the usage in the dependencies, this is consistently the "devlop" package being used as a dependency by other packages like micromark utilities. It's definitely the intended package name. This comment should be deleted as it incorrectly flags a legitimate package name as a typo. The package name "devlop" is not a mistake.

11. docs/bun.lock:3678

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected: "devlop" might be a misspelling of "develop". Please verify if the intended dependency name should be corrected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

12. docs/bun.lock:3700

• Draft comment:
  Typo detected: "devlop" might be a misspelling of "develop". Please verify if the intended dependency name should be corrected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

13. docs/bun.lock:3854

• Draft comment:
  Typo found: In the dependency list for "micromark-factory-label", the key "devlop" appears. It seems like this should be "develop". Please verify and correct if appropriate.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

14. docs/bun.lock:3874

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The dependency name "devlop" appears here. It is likely a typo and should be corrected to "develop".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the context, this appears in a lockfile which contains exact dependency specifications. "devlop" appears to be an actual npm package name, not a typo. Lockfiles should never be manually edited as they are automatically generated. The comment is incorrect in assuming this is a typo. Could "devlop" actually be a typo in the upstream package name itself that should be reported to that package maintainer? No - looking at npm, "devlop" is an intentional package name (https://www.npmjs.com/package/devlop). It's a real dependency used by several packages in the ecosystem. This comment should be deleted as it incorrectly assumes "devlop" is a typo when it's actually a valid package name in the npm registry. We should not suggest editing lockfiles manually.

15. docs/bun.lock:3964

• Draft comment:
  Typo alert: The dependency key "devlop" appears to be misspelled. Consider correcting it to "develop" if that was the intended package name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the context, "devlop" appears consistently multiple times in different dependencies. This suggests it's not a typo but rather the actual name of a package. Lock files contain exact dependency information that comes from package registries, so the names must match exactly. A quick check shows that "devlop" is a real package on npm. I could be wrong if this is a systematic typo that was propagated through multiple dependencies. Should verify the package exists. The consistent usage and the fact that this is a lock file strongly suggests this is the intended package name. A quick verification confirms "devlop" exists as a real package. This comment should be deleted as it incorrectly identifies a legitimate package name as a typo.

16. docs/bun.lock:3974

• Draft comment:
  Typo alert: The dependency key "devlop" appears to be misspelled. Consider correcting it to "develop" if that was the intended package name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% Looking at the context, "devlop" appears consistently multiple times in different dependencies. This suggests it's not a typo but rather the actual name of a package. Lock files contain exact dependency information pulled from package registries, so the names must match exactly. If this was a typo, it wouldn't work at all. I should verify if "devlop" is a real package name that exists in npm or other registries. A quick check shows that "devlop" is indeed a real package on npm (https://www.npmjs.com/package/devlop). This confirms it's not a typo but the correct package name. This comment should be deleted as it incorrectly assumes "devlop" is a typo when it's actually the correct package name.

17. docs/src/pages/docs/api-server.mdx:36

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: The log message reads JAN API listening at http://127.0.0.1:1337. For consistency with the product name Jan used elsewhere, consider using Jan API listening… unless the uppercase JAN is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a documentation file showing what users should expect to see in their logs. If the actual server outputs "JAN API", then changing the docs to say "Jan API" would be incorrect and misleading, even if inconsistent with branding. The docs should accurately reflect the actual server output. Without seeing the server code, we can't verify if this suggestion is valid. I might be wrong about the server output - maybe it really does say "Jan API" and the docs are incorrect. Also, consistency in branding could be important. Documentation should prioritize accuracy over branding consistency. Without being able to verify the actual server output, changing this could mislead users. Delete the comment since we can't verify if the suggestion would make the docs more accurate or less accurate without seeing the actual server output.

18. docs/src/pages/products/index.mdx:20

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "youget" should be separated into "you get".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

19. docs/src/pages/products/index.mdx:112

• Draft comment:
  Typo: "featues" should be corrected to "features".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While this is a real typo in a new file, our rules say not to make purely informative comments and to avoid obvious or unimportant issues. Typos in documentation are generally minor issues that can be fixed during normal editing, and don't require a PR comment. The typo is real and this is a user-facing documentation file, so having correct spelling could be considered important for professionalism. However, this is a simple, obvious typo that the author can easily spot and fix during their own review, and doesn't impact the functionality or understanding of the documentation. Delete this comment as it points out a minor, obvious issue that doesn't require explicit feedback in a PR comment.

20. docs/src/pages/products/platforms/mobile.mdx:44

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: "Beta launchplanned for Q4 2025" on line 44 appears to have a missing space. Consider changing it to "Beta launch planned for Q4 2025".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically correct, our rules state we should not make purely informative comments or point out obvious things. This is a very minor typo that the author can easily spot and fix themselves. It doesn't affect functionality or code quality in any meaningful way. The typo could potentially make it into production documentation if not fixed. Documentation quality is important for user experience. While documentation quality matters, this is such an obvious and minor typo that it doesn't warrant a formal comment. The author will likely catch this during their own review. Delete this comment as it points out an obvious minor typo that doesn't significantly impact code quality or functionality.

21. docs/src/pages/products/tools/browseruse.mdx:11

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The sentence on this line appears to be missing a comma to separate list items. It currently reads "...to accomplish tasks automate workflows, and interact with websites...". Consider revising to "...to accomplish tasks, automate workflows, and interact with websites...".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While this is technically correct and it is about changed code (new file), we need to consider if this minor grammatical issue is important enough to warrant a PR comment. Documentation readability is important, but this is a very minor issue that doesn't significantly impact understanding. Am I being too pedantic about documentation? Not every minor grammatical issue needs to be fixed. Documentation is a product's face to users, but this comma issue is so minor it could be seen as noise in the PR review process. While technically correct, this comment about a missing comma is too minor and doesn't warrant a PR comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_kTzJBbNagA5jWcsw

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed 6724b2d in 3 minutes and 56 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 3548 lines of code in 29 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 24 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/.astro/collections/docs.schema.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed docs.schema.json; ensure that content collection validation is handled elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. docs/.astro/content-assets.mjs:1

• Draft comment:
  File content-assets.mjs was removed; verify no lingering references remain.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. docs/.astro/content-modules.mjs:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed content-modules.mjs; ensure the build process is updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. docs/.astro/content.d.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  content.d.ts was removed; confirm type definitions are now managed elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. docs/.astro/data-store.json:1

• Draft comment:
  data-store.json was removed; verify that caching or metadata storage is updated in the new setup.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. docs/.astro/settings.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed settings.json; ensure any required configuration variables are now set elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

7. docs/.astro/types.d.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed types.d.ts; confirm that type references in the project remain correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

8. docs/src/pages/_meta.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that pages marked with "display": "hidden" (e.g., Homepage, Cortex) are intentionally hidden after this reorganization.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/browser/browserbase.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Browserbase MCP documentation is comprehensive; ensure all placeholders for screenshots are replaced before production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests ensuring something is done before production, which violates the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

10. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/browser/browseruse.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Browser Use MCP doc is clear; double-check Python dependency instructions and verify installation commands work as expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to double-check the Python dependency instructions and verify installation commands, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or ensure things. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue.

11. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/data-analysis/jupyter.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Jupyter MCP documentation is thorough; verify that dependency versions (e.g., JupyterLab 4.4.1) remain current.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and asks the PR author to verify dependency versions, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

12. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/deepresearch/octagon.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Octagon Deep Research MCP documentation is detailed; review any comparative claims (e.g., speed and coverage) to ensure accuracy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests reviewing documentation for accuracy. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. It also doesn't point out a specific issue in the code.

13. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/design/canva.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Canva MCP documentation is well-structured; verify that the OAuth authentication flow details remain up-to-date.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and asks the PR author to verify something, which is against the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or highlight a specific issue with the code.

14. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/search/jina.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Jina MCP documentation covers community implementations; ensure the disclaimer about third-party maintenance is clearly visible.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests ensuring a disclaimer is visible, which is not specific to the code changes in the PR. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written.

15. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/search/perplexity.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Perplexity MCP documentation is detailed; confirm NPX-based installation steps and ensure all placeholders are eventually replaced.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% The comment is asking the PR author to confirm installation steps and ensure placeholders are replaced. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention and ensure behavior, which is against the rules.

16. docs/src/pages/products/_meta.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Legacy Products meta file was removed; ensure navigation and links are updated to reflect the new documentation structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

17. docs/src/pages/products/index.mdx:1

• Draft comment:
  Legacy Products section removed; ensure that any external links or navigation references are redirected to the new structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

18. docs/src/pages/products/:1

• Draft comment:
  Multiple legacy Products pages (models, platforms, tools) were removed. Confirm that the overall documentation navigation and redirections are updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

19. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/browser/browseruse.mdx:54

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: 'GPT-4o' appears in the Callout section. Please confirm if this should be 'GPT-4' instead.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The term "GPT-4o" is used consistently throughout the document in multiple places. This suggests it's an intentional choice, not a typo. Without additional context about what "GPT-4o" refers to, I cannot assume it's incorrect. The comment is making an assumption without strong evidence. I could be wrong if "GPT-4o" is actually a typo that was copy-pasted multiple times. Maybe there's external context about GPT-4 naming that I'm missing. Even if it is a typo, we don't have strong evidence of that. The consistent usage suggests it's intentional, and we should err on the side of assuming the author knows the correct terminology. Delete the comment because we don't have strong evidence that "GPT-4o" is incorrect, and it's used consistently throughout the document.

20. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/data-analysis/jupyter.mdx:161

• Draft comment:
  Typo found: "OpenAI GPT-4o" might be a mistake. Consider verifying if it should be "OpenAI GPT-4".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

21. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/deepresearch/octagon.mdx:103

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be a typographical error: "OpenAI GPT-4o" on this line. Please confirm if it should be "OpenAI GPT-4".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Since this is a new file about a third-party product (Octagon), we don't actually know if "GPT-4o" is a typo or if it's an intentional model designation used by their system. Without being able to verify Octagon's model naming conventions, we can't be certain this is actually incorrect. Making assumptions about third-party product details could lead to incorrect changes. The model name could be intentionally styled that way by Octagon. We don't have access to their official documentation to verify. Given we can't verify the correct model name and this is third-party documentation, we should err on the side of not making assumptions about their naming conventions. Delete the comment since we cannot verify if "GPT-4o" is actually incorrect without access to Octagon's official model naming.

22. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/design/canva.mdx:85

• Draft comment:
  Typo check: The model name "OpenAI GPT-4o" appears here. Please verify if this should be "GPT-4" (without the extra 'o') or if "GPT-4o" is intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% Since this is a new file, we don't have historical context about whether "GPT-4o" is the correct name. The 'o' suffix could be intentional and represent a specific variant or version. Without being able to verify the correct model name externally, we can't be confident this is actually a typo. The comment is asking for verification rather than making a definitive correction. I might be overlooking official OpenAI model naming conventions. The consistent use of "GPT-4o" in two places suggests it might be intentional. Even if there are standard naming conventions, this could be a special variant or internal name used in this specific integration context. Without clear evidence of an error, we shouldn't flag it. Delete the comment because it's speculative and asks for verification rather than pointing out a definitive error. We don't have strong evidence that this is actually incorrect.

23. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/design/canva.mdx:247

• Draft comment:
  Typo check: The model name "GPT-4o" is mentioned again here. Confirm whether this is the correct designation or if it should be "GPT-4".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment suggests changing "GPT-4o" to "GPT-4", but we don't have enough context to know if "GPT-4o" is actually incorrect. The consistent usage in the document suggests it's intentional. Without knowing the official model naming conventions, we can't be sure this is a typo. I could be wrong about "GPT-4o" being intentional - it could be a repeated typo. However, making assumptions about model names without definitive knowledge would be risky. Even if it is a typo, asking for verification violates our rules about not asking authors to confirm things. We should only comment if we're certain something is wrong. The comment should be deleted as it's speculative and asks for verification, which violates our commenting rules.

24. docs/src/pages/docs/mcp-examples/search/jina.mdx:13

• Draft comment:
  Typographical note: In the keywords array, consider hyphenating 'fact checking' to 'fact-checking' for consistency with later usage in the document.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about consistency, it's an extremely minor stylistic change that doesn't affect functionality or readability. The keywords are metadata that won't be visible to end users. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This feels like an overly pedantic suggestion. The inconsistency could potentially affect SEO or searchability if keywords are used for indexing. Also, maintaining consistent terminology throughout a document is a valid technical writing concern. While consistency is good, this is such a minor metadata issue that it doesn't warrant a PR comment. The difference between 'fact checking' and 'fact-checking' in keywords won't meaningfully impact anything. Delete this comment as it's too minor and pedantic to be worth addressing in a PR review.

Workflow ID: wflow_v20zn4J7Refz6T7w

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[Minh141120]

LGTM!

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 0a63196 in 1 minute and 21 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/src/pages/changelog/2025-07-31-llamacpp-tutorials.mdx:43

• Draft comment:
  Removed full form of MCP. Ensure that definitions are provided elsewhere for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_P829vMFtYrfTVXEU

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}