Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Bigsy

Clojars-MCP-Server

by Bigsy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Clojars MCP 서버

npm 버전

Clojars 에서 종속성 정보를 가져오는 도구를 제공하는 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다. Clojars는 Cline, Roo Code, Cody, Claude Desktop 등을 위한 Clojure 커뮤니티의 아티팩트 저장소입니다.

설치

npx를 통해 설치

Clojars MCP 서버를 사용하는 가장 빠른 방법은 npx로 직접 실행하는 것입니다.

지엑스피1

또한 글로벌하게 설치할 수도 있습니다.

npm install -g clojars-deps-server

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 Clojars Dependency Server를 자동으로 설치하려면:

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

수동 설치

  1. 이 저장소를 복제하세요:

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

  1. 종속성 설치:

npm install

  1. 서버를 빌드하세요:

npm run build

  1. Claude 구성에 서버를 추가합니다.

VSCode Claude 확장 프로그램의 경우 cline_mcp_settings.json 에 추가합니다(macOS에서는 일반적으로 ~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/ 위치).

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

Claude 데스크톱 앱의 경우 claude_desktop_config.json 에 다음을 추가합니다(macOS에서는 일반적으로 ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/ 위치).

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

서버 구성을 추가하면 Claude가 시작 시 서버를 자동으로 감지하고 연결합니다. 서버의 기능은 Claude의 시스템 프롬프트에서 "연결된 MCP 서버" 아래에 표시되어 사용할 수 있습니다.

Related MCP server: maven-mcp

특징

  • 모든 Clojars 종속성의 최신 버전을 받으세요

  • 종속성의 특정 버전이 있는지 확인하세요

  • 간단하고 집중적인 응답

  • MCP를 통한 Claude와의 간편한 통합

작동 원리

Claude의 설정에서 이 MCP 서버를 구성하면 Claude의 시스템 프롬프트에서 "연결된 MCP 서버" 섹션에 자동으로 표시됩니다. 이를 통해 Claude는 서버의 기능을 인식하고 use_mcp_tool 명령을 통해 제공된 도구를 사용할 수 있습니다.

서버는 두 가지 도구를 제공합니다.

get_clojars_최신_버전

{
  "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"]
  }
}

check_clojars_version_exists

{
  "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"]
  }
}

도구 이름과 설명은 Claude가 이러한 도구가 Clojars에서 버전 정보를 가져오는 데 사용된다는 것을 이해하는 데 도움이 되도록 특별히 설계되었습니다. 사용자가 Clojars 종속성에 대해 질문할 때 Claude는 다음을 기반으로 이러한 도구가 해당 작업에 적합하다는 것을 알 수 있습니다.

  • 도구 이름은 도구의 목적을 명확하게 나타냅니다.

  • 설명에는 "Clojars 종속성(Maven 아티팩트)"에 대한 것이라고 명시되어 있습니다.

  • 예제 형식은 일반적인 Clojars 종속성 패턴을 보여줍니다.

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