The Node Omnibus MCP Server is a comprehensive development tool for Node.js projects that provides:
Project Management: Create projects with React, Next.js, Express, Fastify, or plain Node.js, with TypeScript integration
Component Generation: Generate React components (functional or class-based) with TypeScript interfaces and prop types
Package Management: Install and manage npm packages as regular or dev dependencies
Configuration Management: Update TypeScript configuration and manage package.json files
Script Management: Add and update npm scripts in package.json
Documentation Generation: Create READMEs, API docs, component documentation, and type definitions
AI-Powered Assistance: Get guidance for project creation, code analysis, debugging, and Git commit messages
API Interaction: Use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to interact with the server via compatible clients
Enables creation of Express projects with automatic configuration
Provides built-in support for scaffolding Fastify projects
Provides AI-powered assistance for Git commit message suggestions
Supports scaffolding new Next.js projects with built-in support
Supports plain Node.js project creation and provides advanced Node.js development tooling
Handles package management including smart dependency installation and version management
Allows creating React projects and generating React components (functional or class-based) with automatic prop types definition
Offers automatic TypeScript configuration, setup, and type definitions management
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., "@Node Omnibus MCP Server create a new React project called 'dashboard-app' with TypeScript support"
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 comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides advanced Node.js development tooling and automation capabilities.
Project Creation: Scaffold new projects with built-in support for:
React
Next.js
Express
Fastify
Plain Node.js
TypeScript Integration: Automatic TypeScript configuration and setup
Package Management: Smart dependency installation and version management
Create React components (functional or class-based)
TypeScript interfaces generation
Automatic prop types definition
Component documentation generation
TypeScript configuration management
NPM script management
Package.json updates
Environment setup
Project README generation
API documentation
Component documentation
TypeScript type definitions documentation
Project creation guidance
Code analysis and improvements
Component generation assistance
Git commit message suggestions
Error debugging assistance
Related MCP server: MOIDVK
To install Node Omnibus Server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @bsmi021/mcp-node-omnibus-server --client claudeClone the repository
Install dependencies:
npm installThe server operates using the Model Context Protocol over stdio. It can be integrated with any MCP-compatible client.
npm startcreate_project
{
name: string;
type: 'react' | 'node' | 'next' | 'express' | 'fastify';
path: string;
typescript?: boolean;
}install_packages
{
packages: string[];
path: string;
dev?: boolean;
}generate_component
{
name: string;
path: string;
type: 'functional' | 'class';
props?: Record<string, string>;
}create_type_definition
{
name: string;
path: string;
properties: Record<string, string>;
}add_script
{
path: string;
name: string;
command: string;
}update_tsconfig
{
path: string;
options: Record<string, unknown>;
}create_documentation
{
path: string;
type: 'readme' | 'api' | 'component';
name?: string;
}create-project
{
projectType: string; // react, node, next, express, fastify
features?: string; // comma-separated list of features
}analyze-code
{
code: string;
language: string;
}generate-component
{
name: string;
type: string; // functional or class
}git-commit
{
changes: string; // Git diff or description of changes
}debug-error
{
error: string; // Error message or stack trace
}node-omnibus-server/
├── src/
│ └── index.ts # Main server implementation
├── dist/ # Compiled JavaScript
├── node_modules/ # Dependencies
├── package.json # Project configuration
└── tsconfig.json # TypeScript configurationnpm run buildnpm testnpm run devAdd to your VSCode settings:
{
"mcpServers": {
"node-omnibus": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["path/to/node-omnibus-server/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}const client = new McpClient();
await client.connect(transport);
// Create a new React project
const result = await client.callTool('create_project', {
name: 'my-app',
type: 'react',
path: './projects',
typescript: true
});
// Use AI assistance for project setup
const guidance = await client.getPrompt('create-project', {
projectType: 'react',
features: 'typescript,testing,docker'
});Fork the repository
Create a feature branch
Make your changes
Submit a pull request
MIT License - See LICENSE file for details
Node.js >= 14.x
npm >= 6.x
TypeScript >= 4.x
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk
axios
typescript (dev)
Add a new npm script to package.json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project directory path | |
| name | Yes | Script name | |
| command | Yes | Script command |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it overwrites existing scripts, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid path), or provides any confirmation output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.
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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity (modifying package.json) and lack of structured coverage, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (path, name, command). It doesn't explain parameter relationships, format expectations, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Add') and target resource ('npm script to package.json'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'install_packages' or 'update_tsconfig' by focusing specifically on script addition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_project' might also involve package.json modifications).
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing package.json), exclusions (e.g., when not to add scripts), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_project' which might also handle package.json. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate project documentation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project directory path | |
| type | Yes | Documentation type | |
| name | No | Component or API name for specific documentation |
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. 'Generate project documentation' implies a write operation that creates files, but it doesn't specify what gets created (e.g., file names, locations), whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 phrase that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and good schema documentation, 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?
For a tool that creates documentation files (implied mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets generated, where files are placed, what format they're in, or what happens on success/failure. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool remains incomplete.
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 has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (path, type with enum values, name). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 'Generate project documentation' clearly states the verb ('generate') and resource ('project documentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_type_definition' or 'generate_component' that might also involve documentation creation, preventing 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. With siblings like 'create_type_definition' and 'generate_component' that might overlap in documentation-related functionality, there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus those others, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new Node.js project with enhanced configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| type | Yes | Project type | |
| path | Yes | Project directory path | |
| typescript | No | Enable TypeScript support |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing projects, what 'enhanced configuration' entails, or any side effects like file generation or dependencies installation.
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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place by clearly conveying the core function.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'enhanced configuration' means, what gets created (e.g., files, folders), or the response format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.
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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'enhanced configuration' might relate to the parameters, but it doesn't explain how. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new Node.js project'), specifying it's for Node.js projects with enhanced configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_component' or 'create_documentation', which might also create project-related artifacts.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'add_script' or 'install_packages', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create TypeScript type definitions or interfaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Type name | |
| path | Yes | File path | |
| properties | Yes | Type properties and their types |
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 action 'create' but doesn't explain what happens after creation—whether files are written to disk, if overwrites occur, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably writes files.
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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 complexity (creating files with structured data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like file handling, error cases, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'properties' or how 'path' is interpreted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'create' and the resource 'TypeScript type definitions or interfaces', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_documentation' or 'generate_component', but the specificity of 'TypeScript type definitions' provides good clarity.
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 doesn't mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'create_documentation' or 'generate_component', nor does it specify prerequisites or context for creating type definitions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a new React component with TypeScript support
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name | |
| path | Yes | Component directory path | |
| type | Yes | Component type | |
| props | No | Component props with types |
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 'generate' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify file system effects, permissions needed, error handling, or what happens if the component already exists. This is inadequate for a tool that likely creates files.
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 fluff. 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 complexity of generating code files and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, file structure created, or behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not providing additional context like examples or constraints.
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 action ('generate') and resource ('new React component with TypeScript support'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_type_definition', but it's specific enough to understand what it creates.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_type_definition', leaving the agent to guess 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.
Install npm packages with version management
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | Package names to install | |
| path | Yes | Project directory path | |
| dev | No | Install as dev dependency |
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 'Install' implies a mutation/write operation, the description doesn't specify critical behaviors like whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies package.json/package-lock.json, potential side effects, or error handling. The phrase 'with version management' adds some context but is vague about what that entails.
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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part earning its place by conveying essential information about the action and context.
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 complexity of installing npm packages (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, or how it interacts with the project environment. For a tool with 3 parameters and significant implications, this minimal description is insufficient.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 action ('Install') and target ('npm packages') with additional context ('with version management'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_script' or 'create_project', which might also involve package management in different contexts.
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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites (like needing Node.js/npm installed), and no comparison to sibling tools that might handle related tasks like 'add_script' or 'create_project'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update TypeScript configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project directory path | |
| options | Yes | TypeScript compiler options |
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 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't describe what gets modified (e.g., tsconfig.json file), whether changes are destructive, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets updated (e.g., tsconfig.json file), what the update entails, potential side effects, or expected outcomes. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective tool invocation.
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 clear documentation for both parameters ('path' and 'options'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 'Update TypeScript configuration' clearly states the action (update) and resource (TypeScript configuration), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_project' or 'create_type_definition' that might also involve TypeScript configuration.
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. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different aspects of Node.js/TypeScript development workflows. There is no overlap between adding npm scripts, creating documentation, setting up projects, defining types, generating components, installing packages, and updating tsconfig.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive names. The naming convention is uniform throughout (e.g., add_script, create_documentation, install_packages), making the tool set predictable and easy to understand.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for Node.js/TypeScript project management. Each tool serves a specific, valuable function in the development lifecycle, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The tool set covers key areas like project setup, dependency management, configuration, and code generation, but there are minor gaps such as missing tools for testing, building, or deployment workflows that might be expected in a comprehensive Node.js server.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bsmi021/mcp-node-omnibus-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
