模型上下文协议 (MCP) 插件可直接从 Cline 无缝访问 Grok AI 的强大功能。
该插件通过 MCP 接口公开了三个强大的工具：
聊天完成- 使用 Grok 的语言模型生成文本响应
图像理解——利用 Grok 的视觉功能分析图像
函数调用——使用 Grok 根据用户输入调用函数
Related MCP server: Grok MCP Server
Node.js（v16 或更高版本）
Grok AI API 密钥（从console.x.ai获取）
Cline 与 MCP 支持
克隆此存储库：
git clone https://github.com/Bob-lance/grok-mcp.git
cd grok-mcp安装依赖项：
npm install构建项目：
npm run build将 MCP 服务器添加到您的 Cline MCP 设置：
对于 VSCode Cline 扩展，请编辑以下文件：
~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json添加以下配置：
{
"mcpServers": {
"grok-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/grok-mcp/build/index.js"],
"env": {
"XAI_API_KEY": "your-grok-api-key"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}将/path/to/grok-mcp替换为您的安装的实际路径，并将your-grok-api-key替换为您的 Grok AI API 密钥。
安装并配置完成后，Grok MCP 插件将提供三个可在 Cline 中使用的工具：
使用 Grok 的语言模型生成文本响应：
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>grok-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>chat_completion</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"messages": [
{
"role": "system",
"content": "You are a helpful assistant."
},
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Hello, what can you tell me about Grok AI?"
}
],
"temperature": 0.7
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>使用 Grok 的视觉功能分析图像：
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>grok-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>image_understanding</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"image_url": "https://example.com/image.jpg",
"prompt": "What is shown in this image?"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>您还可以使用 base64 编码的图像：
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>grok-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>image_understanding</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"base64_image": "base64-encoded-image-data",
"prompt": "What is shown in this image?"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>使用 Grok 根据用户输入调用函数：
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>grok-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>function_calling</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"messages": [
{
"role": "user",
"content": "What's the weather like in San Francisco?"
}
],
"tools": [
{
"type": "function",
"function": {
"name": "get_weather",
"description": "Get the current weather in a given location",
"parameters": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"location": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The city and state, e.g. San Francisco, CA"
},
"unit": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["celsius", "fahrenheit"],
"description": "The unit of temperature to use"
}
},
"required": ["location"]
}
}
}
]
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>使用 Grok AI 聊天完成生成响应。
参数：
messages （必需）：具有角色和内容的消息对象数组
model （可选）：要使用的 Grok 模型（默认为 grok-2-latest）
temperature （可选）：采样温度（0-2，默认为1）
max_tokens （可选）：要生成的最大令牌数（默认为 16384）
使用 Grok AI 视觉功能分析图像。
参数：
prompt （必需）：与图片一起出现的文字提示
image_url （可选）：要分析的图像的 URL
base64_image （可选）：Base64 编码的图像数据（不带 data:image 前缀）
model （可选）：要使用的 Grok 视觉模型（默认为 grok-2-vision-latest）
注意：必须提供image_url或base64_image 。
使用 Grok AI 根据用户输入调用函数。
参数：
messages （必需）：具有角色和内容的消息对象数组
tools （必需）：具有类型、函数名称、描述和参数的工具对象数组
tool_choice （可选）：工具选择模式（自动、必需、无，默认为自动）
model （可选）：要使用的 Grok 模型（默认为 grok-2-latest）
src/index.ts - 主服务器实现
src/grok-api-client.ts - Grok API 客户端实现
npm run buildXAI_API_KEY="your-grok-api-key" node build/index.js该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。
Generate a response using Grok AI chat completion
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_tokens | No | Maximum number of tokens to generate | |
| messages | Yes | Array of message objects with role and content | |
| model | No | Grok model to use (e.g., grok-2-latest, grok-3, grok-3-reasoner, grok-3-deepsearch, grok-3-mini-beta) | grok-3-mini-beta |
| temperature | No | Sampling temperature (0-2) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, response formats, error conditions, or any operational constraints. For a generative AI tool with significant behavioral implications, this is inadequate.
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 states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero wasted words.
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 generative AI tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of response is generated, how to interpret results, error handling, or operational constraints. The agent lacks crucial context about this tool's behavior and outputs despite the comprehensive input schema.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
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 ('Generate a response') and the resource/technology ('using Grok AI chat completion'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools (function_calling, image_understanding) - all three appear to be different Grok AI capabilities, but the description doesn't explain how chat completion differs from function calling or image understanding.
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 its siblings. There's no mention of appropriate contexts for chat completion versus function calling or image understanding, nor any prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage from 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.
Use Grok AI to call functions based on user input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messages | Yes | Array of message objects with role and content | |
| model | No | Grok model to use (e.g., grok-2-latest, grok-3, grok-3-reasoner, grok-3-deepsearch, grok-3-mini-beta) | grok-3-mini-beta |
| tool_choice | No | Tool choice mode (auto, required, none) | auto |
| tools | Yes | Array of tool objects with type, function name, description, and parameters |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. It mentions Grok AI but doesn't explain what that entails operationally, leaving significant gaps in transparency.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how function calling integrates with user input, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, not explaining how parameters like messages or tools relate to function calling. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the tool 'call[s] functions based on user input' using Grok AI, which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what functions are called or how this differs from sibling tools like chat_completion. It's vague about the exact verb+resource combination beyond invoking AI capabilities.
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 chat_completion or image_understanding. The description implies it's for function calling but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyze images using Grok AI vision capabilities (Note: Grok 3 may support image creation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base64_image | No | Base64-encoded image data (without the data:image prefix) | |
| image_url | No | URL of the image to analyze | |
| model | No | Grok vision model to use (e.g., grok-2-vision-latest, potentially grok-3 variants) | grok-2-vision-latest |
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt to accompany the image |
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 the tool analyzes images but does not describe what the analysis entails (e.g., object detection, captioning, OCR), potential limitations (e.g., image size restrictions, rate limits), or authentication needs. The note about Grok 3 adds confusion rather than transparency.
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 brief but includes a parenthetical note that is speculative and not directly relevant to the tool's current functionality, reducing efficiency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extra sentence detracts from conciseness without adding value.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis returns (e.g., text descriptions, structured data), error conditions, or behavioral traits like rate limits. The note about Grok 3 does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between base64_image and image_url or elaborating on model options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 as 'Analyze images using Grok AI vision capabilities' with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('images'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_completion and function_calling. However, it includes a parenthetical note about Grok 3 potentially supporting image creation, which slightly dilutes the clarity by introducing unrelated future capabilities.
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 chat_completion or function_calling. It mentions Grok 3 may support image creation, but this is speculative and not actionable for current usage decisions. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are included.
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.
v1.0.0chat_completionfunction_callingimage_understandingScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: chat_completion handles text generation, function_calling manages function execution, and image_understanding focuses on visual analysis. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
The tools follow a consistent snake_case naming convention, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun (e.g., chat_completion, function_calling, image_understanding). The naming is readable and logical, with only minor deviations from a perfect pattern.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a general-purpose AI plugin, potentially lacking operations like text summarization, translation, or audio processing. However, it covers core AI functionalities adequately for basic use cases.
The tools cover key AI areas (text, functions, images), but there are notable gaps such as missing text analysis tools (e.g., sentiment analysis, summarization) and no explicit support for audio or video processing. The surface is functional but not comprehensive for a full AI suite.
Share one project context across ChatGPT, Claude, Telegram and any MCP client.
Talk to your public-facing AI from any MCP client — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Persistent context for Claude. Your AI always knows your projects and next actions across sessions.
