このMCPサーバーは、さまざまなMCPクライアントの設定管理に役立ちます。クライアント設定ファイルからサーバー設定を取得、一覧表示、追加、削除するためのツールを提供します。サーバーは、オペレーティングシステム（WindowsまたはmacOS）と指定されたクライアントに基づいて、適切な設定ファイルのパスを自動的に検出します。
# Install from npm
npm install -g @landicefu/mcp-client-configuration-server
# Or use npx to run without installing
npx @landicefu/mcp-client-configuration-serverRelated MCP server: MCP Configuration Editor
この MCP サーバーを AI アシスタントで使用するには、MCP 設定構成に追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-client-configuration": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@landicefu/mcp-client-configuration-server"],
"env": {},
"disabled": false,
"alwaysAllow": []
}
}
}Cline : Claude 搭載コーディングアシスタント
Roo Code : AI機能を備えたコードエディタ
WindSurf : AI搭載ブラウザ
Claude アプリ: Claude AI のデスクトップ アプリケーション
注: Cursor は MCP 設定に標準の設定ファイルを使用しないため、サポート対象外となりました。Cursor は MCP 設定を簡単に変更できない方法で保存しているため、この設定サーバーのファイルベースのアプローチと互換性がありません。
このサーバーは特に次の場合に役立ちます:
複数のクライアントにわたる MCP サーバの管理: サーバを一度構成して複数のクライアントに展開する
構成の自動化: スクリプトはこのサーバーを使用して、MCP 構成をプログラムで管理できます。
トラブルシューティング: 構成されているサーバーとその設定を簡単に確認します
以下は、AI アシスタントを使用して Roo Code から Claude デスクトップ アプリに MCP サーバー構成をコピーするための簡単なプロンプトです。
Please copy the "brave-search" MCP server configuration from Roo Code to my Claude desktop app.AI アシスタントはバックグラウンドで次の手順を実行します。
Roo Code からサーバー構成を取得します。
// First, get the server configuration from Roo Code
{
"client": "roo_code",
"server_name": "brave-search"
}次に、同じ構成を Claude に追加します。
// Then add it to Claude with the same settings
{
"client": "claude",
"server_name": "brave-search",
"json_config": {
// Configuration retrieved from previous step
},
"allow_override": true
}これにより、さまざまな AI アシスタント間で MCP サーバー構成を簡単に同期できるようになります。
指定されたクライアントの構成ファイルへのパスを取得します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
戻り値:
設定ファイルへの絶対パス
指定されたクライアントの構成全体を取得します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
戻り値:
クライアントの構成ファイルからの完全なJSON構成
指定されたクライアントの構成で構成されているすべてのサーバー名を一覧表示します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
戻り値:
サーバー名の配列
クライアントの構成から特定のサーバーの構成を取得します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
server_name (必須): 取得するサーバーの名前
戻り値:
指定されたサーバーのJSON構成
クライアントの構成ファイル内のサーバー構成を追加または更新します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
server_name (必須): 追加または更新するサーバーの名前
json_config (必須): JSON形式のサーバー構成
例：
{
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@landicefu/android-adb-mcp-server"],
"env": {},
"disabled": false,
"alwaysAllow": []
}戻り値:
更新された構成の成功メッセージ
クライアントの構成ファイルからサーバー構成を削除します。
パラメータ:
client （必須）: クライアント名（cline、roo_code、windsurf、claude）
server_name (必須): 削除するサーバーの名前
戻り値:
削除された構成またはサーバーが見つからないというメッセージ
サーバーは、オペレーティング システム (Windows または macOS) と指定されたクライアントに基づいて適切な構成ファイル パスを検出します。
すべての構成ファイルは、変更後に整えられた JSON 形式で維持されます。
構成ファイルが存在しない、またはアクセスできない場合のために、エラー処理が提供されます。
構成ファイルとディレクトリが存在しない場合は、サーバーによって自動的に作成されます。
各クライアントの構成パス:
ウィンドウズ:
クライン: %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\saoudrizwan.claude-dev\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json
Roo コード: %APPDATA%\Code\User\globalStorage\rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline\settings\cline_mcp_settings.json
ウィンドサーフ: %APPDATA%\WindSurf\mcp_settings.json
クロード: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
macOS :
Cline: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
Roo コード: ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/rooveterinaryinc.roo-cline/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json
WindSurf: ~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json
クロード: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
設定ファイルが見つかりません
新しいサーバーを追加するときに、構成ファイルが存在しない場合は自動的に作成されます。
その他の操作では、構成ファイルが存在しない場合はエラー メッセージが表示されます。
サーバーは既に存在します
すでに存在するサーバーを追加する場合は、更新するためにallow_override``trueに設定する必要があります。
例：
{
"client": "cline",
"server_name": "existing-server",
"json_config": { /* new config */ },
"allow_override": true
}サポートされていないプラットフォーム
現在、Windows と macOS のみがサポートされています。
将来のバージョンでは Linux サポートが追加される可能性があります。
サーバーを更新または削除する前に、必ずサーバーが存在するかどうかを確認してください。
管理を容易にするために、クライアント間で一貫したサーバー名を使用します。
サーバー構成の機密情報には環境変数を使用することを検討してください。
Add or update a server configuration in a client configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) | |
| server_name | Yes | Name of the server to add or update | |
| json_config | Yes | Server configuration in JSON format | |
| allow_override | No | Whether to allow overriding an existing server configuration with the same name (default: false) |
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 mentions 'Add or update' which implies mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as permissions required, idempotency, error handling, or what happens on conflicts (beyond the 'allow_override' parameter). This leaves significant 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 sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and how it interacts with sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes for 'json_config' or 'client'. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 or update') and the target resource ('a server configuration in a client configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_server_configuration' or 'get_server_configuration', which would be needed for a score of 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 alternatives like 'remove_server_configuration' or 'get_server_configuration', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It merely restates the tool's function without offering operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the entire configuration for a specific client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) |
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'entire configuration' entails (e.g., format, size). This leaves significant gaps 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'entire configuration' returns (e.g., structure, data types) or address potential complexities like authentication needs or error cases, which are critical for a configuration retrieval tool.
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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'client' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter selects a client, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline 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 action ('Get') and resource ('entire configuration for a specific client'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_configuration_path' or 'get_server_configuration', which prevents 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_configuration_path' or 'get_server_configuration'. The description implies usage for client configurations but doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the path to the configuration file for a specific client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) |
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns absolute/relative paths, handles errors for invalid clients, or has any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy for an agent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the returned path looks like (e.g., string format, filesystem type), error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output info, more context is needed.
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 the single parameter 'client' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the client name is used to locate a configuration file, but doesn't provide additional context like file format or location constraints. This meets the baseline 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('path to the configuration file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_configuration' (which likely retrieves configuration content rather than just the file path), missing full sibling differentiation.
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 like 'get_configuration' or 'get_server_configuration'. It mentions a 'specific client' but doesn't clarify if this is for client-side versus server-side configurations or when path retrieval is preferred over content retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the configuration for a specific server from a client configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) | |
| server_name | Yes | Name of the server to retrieve |
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 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what happens if the server doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 simple read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the configuration returns, whether it's JSON/YAML/text, or what happens on errors. With siblings suggesting a configuration management system, more behavioral 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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'client' and 'server_name'. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, though the description could have provided additional context about parameter relationships 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 ('Get') and resource ('configuration for a specific server from a client configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_configuration' or 'get_configuration_path', which likely retrieve different types of configuration data.
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 'get_configuration' and 'get_configuration_path' that might retrieve different scopes of configuration data, there's no indication of when this specific server-focused retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all server names configured in a specific client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) |
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 it 'lists' server names, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes (e.g., list of strings, structured data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of server names. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether it's safe to call repeatedly. For a read operation with structured siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
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%, with the single parameter 'client' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates within a client context, which is already covered by the schema's description. 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 clearly states the action ('List all server names') and resource ('configured in a specific client'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_configuration' or 'get_configuration', which might also retrieve server-related information but with different scope or detail.
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 like 'get_server_configuration' or 'get_configuration'. It mentions 'in a specific client' which implies a context, but doesn't state exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a server configuration from a client configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | Yes | Client name (cline, roo_code, windsurf, claude) | |
| server_name | Yes | Name of the server to remove |
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 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description does not specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or the impact on the client configuration (e.g., if it affects functionality). It also omits details like error handling or response format, leaving significant 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects such as the consequences of removal, required permissions, error scenarios, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies configurations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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 ('client' and 'server_name'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on parameter values. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Remove') and the target ('a server configuration from a client configuration'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'remove_server_configuration' vs 'add_server_configuration' or 'get_server_configuration', which would require mentioning the destructive nature or contrasting with read operations.
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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., the server must exist in the configuration), when not to use it (e.g., if the server is critical), or references to sibling tools like 'add_server_configuration' or 'get_server_configuration' for comparison.
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.
add_server_configurationget_configurationget_configuration_pathget_server_configurationlist_serversremove_server_configurationScored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: adding/updating, getting full config, getting config path, getting server-specific config, listing servers, and removing server config. The descriptions clearly differentiate between operations on the entire configuration versus specific servers.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case throughout. The naming convention is perfectly uniform with clear action prefixes (add, get, list, remove) followed by specific objects (server_configuration, configuration, configuration_path, etc.).
Six tools is well-scoped for a client configuration management server. Each tool earns its place by covering essential CRUD operations for server configurations within client configs, plus utility functions for listing and path retrieval. The count is neither too sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage for managing server configurations within client configurations: create/update (add_server_configuration), read (get_configuration, get_server_configuration, list_servers), delete (remove_server_configuration), plus utility (get_configuration_path). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for progressive tool usage at any scale (see https://klavis.ai)
The Remote MCP server acts as a standardized bridge between LLM applications (like Claude, ChatGPT, and Cursor) and external services, enabling AI agents to access external tools and resources. Its primary capability is providing a centralized search tool to discover other MCP servers and their respective tools. Unlike local implementations, it runs remotely with OAuth authentication and permission controls for security.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.