Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Bigsy

Clojars-MCP-Server

by Bigsy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Servidor MCP de Clojars

versión npm

Un servidor de Protocolo de contexto de modelo (MCP) que proporciona herramientas para obtener información de dependencia de Clojars , el repositorio de artefactos de la comunidad Clojure para Cline, Roo Code, Cody, Claude Desktop, etc.

Instalación

Instalación mediante npx

La forma más rápida de utilizar el servidor MCP de Clojars es ejecutarlo directamente con npx:

npx clojars-deps-server

También puedes instalarlo globalmente:

npm install -g clojars-deps-server

Instalación mediante herrería

Para instalar Clojars Dependency Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :

npx -y @smithery/cli install clojars-deps-server --client claude

Instalación manual

  1. Clonar este repositorio:

git clone https://github.com/yourusername/clojars-deps-server.git
cd clojars-deps-server

  1. Instalar dependencias:

npm install

  1. Construir el servidor:

npm run build

  1. Añade el servidor a tu configuración de Claude:

Para la extensión Claude de VSCode, agregue a cline_mcp_settings.json (normalmente ubicado en ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/ en macOS):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "clojars-deps-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/clojars-deps-server/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Para la aplicación de escritorio Claude, agregue a claude_desktop_config.json (normalmente ubicado en ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/ en macOS):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "clojars-deps-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/clojars-deps-server/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Tras agregar la configuración del servidor, Claude lo detectará y se conectará automáticamente al inicio. Las funciones del servidor aparecerán en el indicador de sistema de Claude, en "Servidores MCP conectados", lo que permitirá su uso.

Related MCP server: maven-mcp

Características

  • Obtenga la última versión de cualquier dependencia de Clojars

  • Comprobar si existe una versión específica de una dependencia

  • Respuestas sencillas y concretas

  • Fácil integración con Claude a través de MCP

Cómo funciona

Al configurar este servidor MCP en la configuración de Claude, este se muestra automáticamente en el símbolo del sistema, en la sección "Servidores MCP conectados". Esto permite a Claude conocer las capacidades del servidor y usar las herramientas proporcionadas mediante el comando use_mcp_tool .

El servidor expone dos herramientas:

obtener_la_última_versión_de_clojars

{
  "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"]
  }
}

comprobar_la_versión_de_clojars_existe

{
  "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"]
  }
}

Los nombres y descripciones de las herramientas están diseñados específicamente para que Claude comprenda que estas herramientas sirven para recuperar información de versiones de Clojars. Cuando los usuarios preguntan sobre las dependencias de Clojars, Claude puede reconocer que estas herramientas son adecuadas para la tarea basándose en:

  • Los nombres de las herramientas indican explícitamente su propósito.

  • Las descripciones especifican que son para la "dependencia de Clojars (artefacto Maven)".

  • Los formatos de ejemplo muestran patrones de dependencia típicos de Clojars

Available Tools

3 tools
check_clojars_version_existsB

Check if a specific version of a Clojars dependency exists

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dependencyYesClojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit")
versionYesVersion to check (e.g. "0.7.2")

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

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 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_clojars_historyC

Get version history of a Clojars dependency

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dependencyYesClojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit")
limitNoNumber of versions to return (default: 15, max: 100)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

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 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_clojars_latest_versionC

Get the latest version of a Clojars dependency (Maven artifact)

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dependencyYesClojars dependency name in format "group/artifact" (e.g. "metosin/reitit")

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 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

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 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.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcheck_clojars_version_exists
    • First observedget_clojars_history
    • First observedget_clojars_latest_version
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches