Clojars (Cline、Roo Code、Cody、Claude Desktop などの Clojure コミュニティの成果物リポジトリ) から依存関係情報を取得するためのツールを提供するModel Context Protocol (MCP)サーバー。
Clojars MCP サーバーを使用する最も簡単な方法は、npx を使用して直接実行することです。
npx clojars-deps-serverグローバルにインストールすることもできます。
npm install -g clojars-deps-serverSmithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の Clojars Dependency Server を自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install clojars-deps-server --client claudeこのリポジトリをクローンします:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/clojars-deps-server.git
cd clojars-deps-server依存関係をインストールします:
npm installサーバーを構築します。
npm run buildClaude 構成にサーバーを追加します。
VSCode Claude 拡張機能の場合は、 cline_mcp_settings.json (通常、macOS では~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/にあります) に追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"clojars-deps-server": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/clojars-deps-server/build/index.js"]
}
}
}Claude デスクトップ アプリの場合は、 claude_desktop_config.json (通常、macOS では~/Library/Application Support/Claude/にあります) に追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"clojars-deps-server": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/clojars-deps-server/build/index.js"]
}
}
}サーバー設定を追加すると、Claude は起動時に自動的にサーバーを検出し、接続します。サーバーの機能は Claude のシステムプロンプトの「接続された MCP サーバー」に表示され、使用可能になります。
Related MCP server: @4da/mcp-server
Clojars依存関係の最新バージョンを取得する
依存関係の特定のバージョンが存在するかどうかを確認する
シンプルで焦点を絞った回答
MCP による Claude との簡単な統合
このMCPサーバーがClaudeの設定で設定されると、Claudeのシステムプロンプトの「接続されたMCPサーバー」セクションで自動的に使用可能になります。これにより、Claudeはサーバーの機能を認識し、 use_mcp_toolコマンドを通じて提供されているツールを使用できるようになります。
サーバーは 2 つのツールを公開します。
{
"name": "get_clojars_latest_version",
"description": "Get the latest version of a Clojars dependency (Maven artifact)",
"inputSchema": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"dependency": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Clojars dependency name in format \"group/artifact\" (e.g. \"metosin/reitit\")"
}
},
"required": ["dependency"]
}
}{
"name": "check_clojars_version_exists",
"description": "Check if a specific version of a Clojars dependency exists",
"inputSchema": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"dependency": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Clojars dependency name in format \"group/artifact\" (e.g. \"metosin/reitit\")"
},
"version": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Version to check (e.g. \"0.7.2\")"
}
},
"required": ["dependency", "version"]
}
}ツール名と説明は、これらのツールがClojarsからバージョン情報を取得するためのものであることをクロードが理解しやすいように特別に設計されています。ユーザーがClojarsの依存関係について質問した場合、クロードは以下の点に基づいてこれらのツールがタスクに適していると判断できます。
ツール名はその目的を明確に示している
説明には「Clojars 依存関係 (Maven アーティファクト)」用であると明記されています
サンプルフォーマットは典型的なClojarsの依存パターンを示しています
Check if a specific version of a Clojars dependency exists
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dependency | Yes | Clojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit") | |
| version | Yes | Version to check (e.g. "0.7.2") |
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. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a safe lookup, what happens on failure (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is too minimal for a mutation-free tool with no annotation support.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (simple lookup with two parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return values (e.g., boolean, error messages) or behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent.
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, fully documenting both parameters (dependency and version) with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.
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 ('Check') and resource ('specific version of a Clojars dependency'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings (get_clojars_history and get_clojars_latest_version), which would require a 5.
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 its siblings or alternatives. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no contextual direction 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 version history of a Clojars dependency
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dependency | Yes | Clojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit") | |
| limit | No | Number of versions to return (default: 15, max: 100) |
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 what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the version history is returned in. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.
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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context about what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or operational constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured version history data, more context would be helpful.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain the dependency format further or provide additional context about the limit parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('version history of a Clojars dependency'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_clojars_latest_version' (which returns only the latest version) or 'check_clojars_version_exists' (which checks existence of a specific version).
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 its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between 'get_clojars_history', 'get_clojars_latest_version', or 'check_clojars_version_exists'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the latest version of a Clojars dependency (Maven artifact)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dependency | Yes | Clojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit") |
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 traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, output format, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool. The high schema coverage is insufficient to compensate for these gaps.
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, fully documenting the single parameter 'dependency' with format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('latest version of a Clojars dependency'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_clojars_version_exists' or 'get_clojars_history', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.
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 does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
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.
v1.0.0check_clojars_version_existsget_clojars_historyget_clojars_latest_versionScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: checking version existence, retrieving version history, and getting the latest version. The descriptions make it unambiguous what each tool does, and an agent would have no difficulty selecting the right tool for each specific query about Clojars dependencies.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get' or 'check' verbs and descriptive nouns like 'clojars_version_exists', 'clojars_history', and 'clojars_latest_version'. The naming is uniform, predictable, and uses snake_case throughout, making it easy for agents to understand and work with.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a dependency management domain, as it lacks basic operations like searching for dependencies, listing available artifacts, or fetching dependency metadata beyond version info. While the tools are well-defined, the count is borderline low for the apparent scope of interacting with Clojars.
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a Clojars server. Missing are essential operations such as searching for dependencies, retrieving artifact details (e.g., authors, licenses), or managing dependencies (e.g., adding/removing). The current tools only cover version-related queries, leaving agents unable to perform common dependency management tasks, which will likely cause failures in broader workflows.
deps.dev — Google's package metadata + dependency graph API
Is this dependency current, licensed, deprecated, or already carrying a CVE?
Dev-registry data: npm/PyPI/Docker/VS Code packages, dep graphs, vulns, 50+ ecosystems.
Package intelligence for AI agents across npm, PyPI, crates.io and deps.dev. No API keys.