Provides containerization support for the MCP server, allowing it to be built and run as a Docker container with exposed endpoints.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP Server Demo show me how to connect this server to Claude Desktop"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
uv syncuv run server.pydocker build -t mcp-server-demo .docker run -p 8000:8000 --name app-mcp-server mcp-server-demopip install "any"uv run mcp install server.pyuv run mcp install server.pyEjecutando el Script
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-server-demo": {
"command": "C:\\Users\\my-user\\.local\\bin\\uv.EXE",
"args": [
"run",
"--with",
"mcp[cli]",
"mcp",
"run",
"C:\\Users\\my-path\\mcp-server-demo\\server.py"
]
}
}
}Ejecutando el servidor
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-server-docker": {
"url": "http://0.0.0.0:8000/mcp/"
}
}
}Python SDK for MCP - SDK oficial de Python para Model Context Protocol
Obtiene la cotización entre dos monedas. Devuelve None si hay error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from_currency | Yes | ||
| to_currency | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 mentions that it 'Devuelve None si hay error' (returns None if there's an error), which is useful error-handling information. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, or whether it's a read-only operation.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and error behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.
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 moderate complexity (currency conversion with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate coverage. It states what the tool does and includes error behavior, though additional context about data sources or limitations would be beneficial.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'dos monedas' (two currencies) which aligns with the two parameters, but provides no details about expected formats (currency codes, symbols), validation rules, or examples.
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 with a specific verb ('Obtiene la cotización') and resource ('entre dos monedas'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the only sibling tool 'sum', which is a completely different operation, so this isn't a significant gap.
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. While the sibling 'sum' tool is unrelated (mathematical addition), there's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for currency conversion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Suma dos números.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 only states the basic function ('Suma dos números') without any information on error handling, performance, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with parameters and an output schema.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Suma dos números'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core function 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 simplicity (two integer parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the input schema. It doesn't explain what 'a' and 'b' represent, their constraints, or examples of usage, leaving the parameters undocumented in both the schema and 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 'Suma dos números' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Suma') and resource ('dos números'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from its sibling tool 'get_exchange_rate', which is unrelated, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one handles currency exchange rates, while the other performs basic arithmetic. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The tools use different naming patterns: 'get_exchange_rate' follows a verb_noun convention, while 'sum' is a simple verb. This mixed approach is readable but inconsistent.
With only two tools, the server feels thin and poorly scoped. The tools (currency exchange and arithmetic) are unrelated, suggesting a lack of cohesive domain coverage.
For currency exchange, having only a 'get' operation without create/update/delete is a notable gap. For arithmetic, a single 'sum' tool lacks other basic operations like subtract or multiply, making the surface incomplete.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Drakoxw/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
