Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
DMontgomery40

Meta MCP Server

by DMontgomery40
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Meta MCP サーバー

「メタ」というのは、MCPサーバーがMCPサーバーを作成するからです。そして、「くたばれ、ザック、俺が先に手に入れたんだぞ」という理由もあります（冗談抜きで、この関連性は事後的に思いつきましたが）。

特徴

AIが（粗悪に）作成したコンテンツ:

  • 動的サーバー生成: 作成するディレクトリとファイルを指定することで、カスタマイズされた MCP サーバーを作成できます。

  • 自動ファイル管理: 新しいサーバーに必要なディレクトリとファイルの作成を自動的に処理します。

  • MCP ツール統合: モデル コンテキスト プロトコル SDK を利用して、ツールとリソースを効率的に管理します。

  • エラー処理: 無効な入力やシステム エラーが発生した場合でも安定性を確保するための強力なエラー管理。

  • デバッグ サポート: デバッグと操作の透明性を支援する詳細なログ記録とシステム プロンプト。

Claude Desktopで設定する

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

セキュリティ このサーバーは高度なセキュリティ対策を実装しておらず、開発目的のみでの使用を想定しています。安全な環境で運用し、本番環境での使用には追加の認証および検証メカニズムの実装を検討してください。

Related MCP server: MCP Server Creator

サポート

サポート、機能リクエスト、またはバグの報告については、GitHub リポジトリ ページで問題を開いてください。

ライセンス

MITライセンス

著作権 (c) 2024 デビッド・モンゴメリー

本ソフトウェアおよび関連ドキュメント ファイル (以下「本ソフトウェア」) のコピーを入手したすべての人物は、以下の条件に従い、本ソフトウェアを無制限に扱う権利 (使用、コピー、変更、統合、公開、配布、サブライセンス、および/または販売する権利を含みますが、これに限定されません) および本ソフトウェアの提供を受けた人物が同様の行為を行うことを許可する権利を無償で付与されます。

上記の著作権表示およびこの許可通知は、ソフトウェアのすべてのコピーまたは大部分に含めるものとします。

本ソフトウェアは「現状有姿」で提供され、明示的または黙示的を問わず、商品性、特定目的への適合性、非侵害性を含むがこれらに限定されない、いかなる種類の保証も付与されません。いかなる場合においても、著作者または著作権者は、契約違反、不法行為、またはその他の行為にかかわらず、本ソフトウェア、本ソフトウェアの使用、またはその他の取り扱いに起因または関連して発生するいかなる請求、損害、またはその他の責任についても責任を負わないものとします。

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