一个简单的 echo MCP（模型上下文协议）服务器，带有一个简单的echo_tool ，用于测试 MCP 客户端。它也可以作为新建 MCP 服务器的模板。
安装uv并使用uvx将服务器添加到 MCP 配置：
{
"name": "echo-mcp-server-for-testing",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"echo-mcp-server-for-testing"
],
"env": {
"SECRET_KEY": "123456789"
}
}或者克隆 repo 并使用带有目录的uv ：
{
"name": "echo-mcp-server-for-testing",
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"path/to/root/dir/",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"env": {
"SECRET_KEY": "123456789"
}
}Related MCP server: @profullstack/mcp-server
克隆 repo 并使用mcp-client-for-testing测试服务器的工具。
uvx mcp-client-for-testing \
--config '
[
{
"name": "echo-mcp-server-for-testing",
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"path/to/root/dir/",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"env": {
"SECRET_KEY": "123456789"
}
}
]
' \
--tool_call '{"name": "echo_tool", "arguments": {"message": "Hello, world!"}}'代码已使用 ruff 格式化并进行了 lint：
uv run ruff format
uv run ruff check --fix使用 uv 构建包：
uv build要将软件包的新版本发布到 PyPI，请创建并推送新的 Git 标签：
检出主分支并获取当前版本：
git checkout main
git pull origin main
git describe --tags创建并推送新的 Git 标签：
git tag v0.2.0
git push origin v0.2.0推送新标签时，GitHub Actions 工作流程将自动构建包并将其发布到 PyPI。Python 包版本号将直接从 Git 标签获取。
本项目遵循 MIT 许可证。详情请参阅许可证文件。
Echo a message as a tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
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. The description only states 'Echo a message as a tool' which reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read operation, a transformation, a test utility, or something else. It doesn't mention any side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'echo' means in practical terms.
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 at just 5 words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful content - it's brief but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect as output. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to understand and use this tool 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?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about the 'message' parameter. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, offering no compensation for the schema's lack of documentation. The description should explain what kind of message is expected or what the parameter represents, but it remains completely silent on this.
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 'Echo a message as a tool' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'echo_tool' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses the verb 'echo' which matches the name, but doesn't explain what 'echo' means in this context or what resource is being acted upon. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, but the description remains vague about the actual function.
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, what scenarios it's designed for, or any prerequisites. With no sibling tools, there's no need to differentiate from alternatives, but the description doesn't indicate any context for usage. It's a minimal statement that offers no practical guidance to an agent.
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.
echo_toolScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'echo_tool' has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be mistaken for any other tool in this set.
The naming is perfectly consistent as there is only one tool following the verb_noun pattern 'echo_tool'. No other naming conventions exist to create inconsistency.
A single tool is too few for most practical server purposes, making the set feel thin and limited. While it might be appropriate for a minimal demo or test server, it lacks the depth expected for typical MCP server functionality.
For a simple echo functionality, the single tool covers the basic operation. However, there are no related operations (e.g., variations like echo_reverse or echo_log) that might be expected in a more complete echo service, leaving minor gaps.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for Selise Blocks Cloud integration
Minimal streamable HTTP MCP server used for owned-account registry connectivity tests.
MCP server to assist with JxBrowser development.
A simple MCP server built with FastMCP and python
