shadow-cljs ビルドを監視し、リアルタイムのビルド ステータス更新を提供するモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。
Cline/Cursor/Claude の設定に以下を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"shadow-cljs-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"shadow-cljs-mcp"
],
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": [],
"timeout": 60
}
}
}オプションのサーバーロケーション
{
"mcpServers": {
"shadow-cljs-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"shadow-cljs-mcp",
"--host",
"localhost",
"--port",
"9630"
],
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": [],
"timeout": 60
}
}
}--hostおよび--port引数はオプションです。指定しない場合、サーバーはデフォルトでlocalhost:9630に接続します。
Related MCP server: clj-kondo MCP Server
このMCPサーバーは、実行中のshadow-cljsインスタンスに接続し、ビルドの進行状況、失敗、完了を追跡します。LLMがClojureScriptファイルに変更を加えた後にビルドステータスを確認するために使用できるMCPツールを提供します。
LLM のノート ファイル (例: CLAUDE.md、cursorrules.md) に次の内容を追加します。
After any edits to ClojureScript files, use the shadow-cljs-mcp server's get_last_build_status tool to verify the build succeeded:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>shadow-cljs-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>get_last_build_status</tool_name>
<arguments>
{}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>
This will show:
- Build status (completed/failed)
- Which files were compiled
- Any errors or warnings
- Build duration and metricsビルド成功:
{
"status": "completed",
"resources": 317,
"compiled": 1,
"warnings": 0,
"duration": 0.609,
"compiledFiles": [
"path/to/your/file.cljs (505ms)"
]
}ビルドに失敗しました:
{
"status": "failed",
"message": "Build failed",
"details": {
// Error information
}
}LLMは各ClojureScriptファイルの編集後にget_last_build_statusを呼び出す必要があります。
コンパイルエラーが詳細に表示されるのでデバッグが容易になります
ビルドが成功すると、どのファイルがコンパイルされ、どのくらいの時間がかかったかが表示されます。
このサーバーを起動する前に、shadow-cljs が実行されていることを確認してください。
shadow-cljs インスタンスを実行しています (特に設定されていない場合はデフォルトで localhost:9630 になります)
Get the status of the last shadow-cljs build including any warnings or errors. Call this after making edits to ClojureScript files to verify if the build succeeded or failed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves build status and includes warnings/errors, which is useful for understanding output. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or response format details, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., what 'status' includes), but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary information.
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 specific action ('Get the status'), target resource ('last shadow-cljs build'), and scope ('including any warnings or errors'). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological or vague, and since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Call this after making edits to ClojureScript files to verify if the build succeeded or failed.' This provides clear context and timing guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, no alternative comparisons are necessary.
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.
get_last_build_statusScored across 1 tool
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.
The single tool name 'get_last_build_status' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to create inconsistency. The naming is straightforward and predictable.
A single tool is too few for a server's purpose, as it severely limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or overly narrow scope. This makes the server feel thin and underdeveloped.
The server is severely incomplete for a build tool domain. It only provides status checking, with no tools for initiating builds, managing configurations, handling dependencies, or other essential operations, creating significant gaps.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Real-time planetary signal engine and Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for autonomous AI agents.
