Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
yripper

Remote MCP Server on Cloudflare

by yripper
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Cloudflare 上的远程 MCP 服务器

让我们在 Cloudflare Workers 上启动并运行一个远程 MCP 服务器，并完成 OAuth 登录！

本地开发

# clone the repository
git clone git@github.com:cloudflare/ai.git

# install dependencies
cd ai
npm install

# run locally
npx nx dev remote-mcp-server-bearer-auth

您应该能够在浏览器中打开http://localhost:8787/

Related MCP server: Remote MCP Server on Cloudflare

将 MCP 检查器连接到您的服务器

要探索新的 MCP api，您可以使用MCP 检查器。

  • 使用npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector启动

  • 在检查器中，将传输类型切换为SSE ，并输入http://localhost:8787/sse作为要连接的 MCP 服务器的 URL。

  • 添加承载令牌并点击“连接”

  • 点击“列出工具”

  • 运行“getToken”工具，它应该返回您在检查器中设置的授权标头

将 Claude Desktop 连接到您的本地 MCP 服务器

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "remote-mcp-server-bearer-auth": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "mcp-remote",
        "http://localhost:8787/sse",
        "--header",
        "Authorization: Bearer ${AUTH_TOKEN}"
      ]
    },
    "env": {
      "AUTH_TOKEN": "..."
    }
  }
}

部署到 Cloudflare

npm run deploy

从远程 MCP 客户端调用新部署的远程 MCP 服务器

就像上面在“本地开发”中所做的那样，运行 MCP 检查器：

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector@latest

然后在检查器中输入您的 Worker 的workers.dev URL（例如： worker-name.account-name.workers.dev/sse ）作为要连接的 MCP 服务器的 URL，然后点击“连接”。

现在，您已从远程 MCP 客户端连接到 MCP 服务器。您可以像上面提到的那样传入一个 bearer token

调试

如果出现任何问题，重新启动 Claude 或尝试使用以下命令在命令行上直接连接到 MCP 服务器会有所帮助。

npx mcp-remote http://localhost:8787/sse

在极少数情况下，清除添加到~/.mcp-auth的文件可能会有所帮助

rm -rf ~/.mcp-auth

Available Tools

1 tool
get_list_tweetsC

Get tweets from a specific list

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesID of the list to get tweets from
max_resultsNoMaximum number of tweets to return

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get tweets' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters and potential complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (list_id and max_results). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage tips, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Get tweets from a specific list' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('tweets from a specific list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity such as mentioning retrieval or listing, and with no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate, so it's not a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites, alternatives, or context. It simply states what it does without indicating usage scenarios, which is a significant gap.

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.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • Addedget_list_tweets
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has consistent naming, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'get_list_tweets' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is generally too few for a server's purpose, as it limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or narrow scope. This is borderline inadequate for typical MCP server operations.

Completeness2/5

Inferring the domain as Twitter list management, the tool surface is severely incomplete. It only allows getting tweets from a list, with no capabilities for creating, updating, deleting lists, or interacting with tweets beyond retrieval, leading to significant gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches