Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
DMontgomery40

Meta MCP Server

by DMontgomery40
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Servidor Meta MCP

"Meta" porque es un servidor MCP que crea servidores MCP. Y también porque "¡Maldita sea, Zuck! ¡Yo lo conseguí primero!" (aunque, en serio, hice esa conexión después).

Características

Contenido creado (mal) por IA:

  • Generación dinámica de servidores : permite la creación de servidores MCP personalizados especificando los directorios y archivos que se crearán.

  • Gestión automatizada de archivos : gestiona automáticamente la creación de directorios y archivos necesarios para nuevos servidores.

  • Integración de herramientas MCP : utiliza el SDK de protocolo de contexto de modelo para administrar herramientas y recursos de manera eficiente.

  • Manejo de errores : gestión de errores robusta para garantizar la estabilidad incluso ante entradas no válidas o errores del sistema.

  • Soporte de depuración : registro detallado y avisos del sistema para ayudar en la depuración y la transparencia operativa.

Configurar en Claude Desktop

  },
    "meta-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "meta-mcp-server"]
    }
  }

Seguridad: Este servidor no implementa medidas de seguridad avanzadas y está diseñado exclusivamente para fines de desarrollo. Asegúrese de que funcione en un entorno seguro y considere implementar mecanismos adicionales de autenticación y validación para su uso en producción.

Related MCP server: MCP Server Creator

Apoyo

Para obtener asistencia, solicitar funciones o informar errores, abra un problema en la página del repositorio de GitHub.

Licencia

Licencia MIT

Derechos de autor (c) 2024 David Montgomery

Por la presente se concede permiso, sin cargo, a cualquier persona que obtenga una copia de este software y los archivos de documentación asociados (el "Software"), para tratar el Software sin restricción, incluyendo, sin limitación, los derechos a usar, copiar, modificar, fusionar, publicar, distribuir, sublicenciar y/o vender copias del Software, y para permitir que las personas a quienes se les proporciona el Software lo hagan, sujeto a las siguientes condiciones:

El aviso de derechos de autor anterior y este aviso de permiso se incluirán en todas las copias o partes sustanciales del Software.

EL SOFTWARE SE PROPORCIONA "TAL CUAL", SIN GARANTÍA DE NINGÚN TIPO, EXPRESA O IMPLÍCITA, INCLUYENDO, ENTRE OTRAS, LAS GARANTÍAS DE COMERCIABILIDAD, IDONEIDAD PARA UN FIN DETERMINADO Y NO INFRACCIÓN. EN NINGÚN CASO LOS AUTORES O TITULARES DE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR SERÁN RESPONSABLES DE NINGUNA RECLAMACIÓN, DAÑOS U OTRAS RESPONSABILIDADES, YA SEA EN ACCIÓN CONTRACTUAL, EXTRACONTRACTUAL O DE OTRO TIPO, QUE SURJA DE, SE DERIVE DE O EN RELACIÓN CON EL SOFTWARE O EL USO U OTRAS RELACIONES CON EL MISMO.

Available Tools

1 tool
write_mcp_serverC

Write files for an MCP server based on our discussion with the user

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputDirYesDirectory where server files should be created
filesYes

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 tool writes files, implying a mutation operation, but does not address permissions, error handling, file overwriting behavior, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, with no wasted information.

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 tool's complexity (file writing with nested array parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or detailed usage, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'outputDir' has a description), and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'files' generally but does not explain the structure or usage of the 'files' array. The baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'files' parameter.

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 action ('write files') and the target ('for an MCP server'), specifying the purpose as file creation based on user discussion. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but since there are no sibling tools, this is not a deficiency.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'based on our discussion with the user,' which implies usage context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but overall guidance remains vague.

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. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • Addedwrite_mcp_server
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

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as writing MCP server files based on user discussions, making it distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'write_mcp_server' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (write + mcp_server). Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too few for a server named 'Meta MCP Server', which implies a broader scope or meta-level functionality. A single tool feels thin and limited, suggesting the server might be underdeveloped or narrowly focused beyond typical expectations.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a meta-level server. It only provides a write function without any complementary tools for reading, updating, deleting, or managing MCP servers, creating significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches