en es ja ko zh

Erick Wendel Contributions MCP

Name: Erick Wendel Contributions MCP
Author: ErickWendel

by ErickWendel

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

erickwendel-贡献-mcp

CI 状态铁匠徽章

一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，提供用于跨平台查询Erick Wendel 贡献的工具。您可以通过 Claude、Cursor 或类似工具，使用自然语言查询演讲、博客文章和视频。本项目使用Cursor IDE 和默认代理（试用版）构建。

此 MCP 服务器也可在Smithery上直接集成。

可用工具

该 MCP 服务器提供以下工具与 API 交互：

get-talks ：检索带有可选过滤功能的分页演讲列表
- 支持按 ID、标题、语言、城市、国家和年份进行筛选
- 可以返回按语言、国家或城市分组的计数
get-posts ：获取带有可选过滤和分页的帖子
- 支持按 ID、标题、语言和门户进行过滤
get-videos ：检索带有可选过滤和分页的视频
- 支持按 ID、标题和语言进行过滤
check-status ：验证 API 是否处于活动状态并有响应

与AI工具集成

Related MCP server: MCP TabNews Integration

检查 MCP 服务器功能

您可以使用 Smithery 检查此 MCP 服务器的功能：

npx -y @smithery/cli@latest inspect @ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp

这将向您显示所有可用的工具、它们的参数以及如何使用它们。

设置

确保你使用的是 Node.js v23+

node -v
#v23.9.0

克隆此存储库：

git clone https://github.com/erickwendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp.git
cd erickwendel-contributions-mcp

恢复依赖项：

npm ci

与AI工具集成

光标设置

打开游标设置
导航至 MCP 部分
点击“添加新的 MCP 服务器”

配置服务器：

Name = erickwendel-contributions
Type = command
Command = node ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_PROJECT/src/index.ts

或者如果你更喜欢从 Smithery 执行它

Name = erickwendel-contributions
Type = command
Command = npm exec -- @smithery/cli@latest run @ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp

或者直接从位于~/.cursor/mcp.json的 Cursor 全局 MCP 文件进行配置并添加以下内容：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_PROJECT/src/index.ts"]
    }
  }
}

或者如果你更喜欢从 Smithery 执行它

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "npm",
      "args": [
        "exec",
        "--",
        "@smithery/cli@latest",
        "run",
        "@ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

确保 Cursor 聊天处于代理模式，方法是在左下角下拉菜单中选择“代理”
进入聊天室询问“2024 年发布了多少关于 JavaScript 的视频”

Claude 桌面设置

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动安装 Erick Wendel Contributions for Claude Desktop：

npx -y @smithery/cli install @ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp --client claude

注意：Claude 的 Smithery CLI 安装目前遇到问题。请使用下方的手动安装方法，直至问题解决。

手动设置

前往 Claude 设置
点击“开发人员”选项卡
点击编辑配置
在代码编辑器中打开配置
将以下配置添加到您的 Claude Desktop 配置中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_PROJECT/src/index.ts"]
    }
  }
}

或者如果你更喜欢从 Smithery 执行它

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "npm",
      "args": [
        "exec",
        "--",
        "@smithery/cli@latest",
        "run",
        "@ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

保存文件并重新启动 Claude Desktop
再次打开“开发人员”选项卡并检查它是否处于“正在运行”状态，如下所示：

进入聊天室询问“有关于 RAG 的视频吗？”

使用 MCPHost 的免费替代方案

如果您无法使用 Claude Desktop 或 Cursor，可以使用MCPHost和 Ollama 作为免费替代方案。MCPHost 是一款命令行工具，可帮助大型语言模型与 MCP 服务器进行交互。

安装 MCPHost：

go install github.com/mark3labs/mcphost@latest

创建一个配置文件（例如./mcp.jsonc ）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_PROJECT/src/index.ts"]
    }
  }
}

或者如果你更喜欢从 Smithery 执行它

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "erickwendel-contributions": {
      "command": "npm",
      "args": [
        "exec",
        "--",
        "@smithery/cli@latest",
        "run",
        "@ErickWendel/erickwendel-contributions-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

使用您首选的 Ollama 模型运行 MCPHost：

ollama pull MODEL_NAME
mcphost --config ./mcp.jsonc -m ollama:MODEL_NAME

示例查询

以下是您可以向 Claude、Cursor 或任何 MCP 客户询问的一些示例：

“2023 年进行了多少次演讲？”

“给我看西班牙语演讲”

“查找有关 WebXR 的帖子”

发展

特征

使用模型上下文协议（MCP）构建
使用 TypeScript 和 Zod 模式验证实现类型安全
Node.js 原生支持 TypeScript，无需转译
使用GenQL生成的 SDK
关注点分离的模块化架构
标准 I/O 传输，易于集成
结构化错误处理
与 Claude Desktop、Cursor 和MCPHost （免费替代品）兼容

注意：该项目需要 Node.js v23+，因为它使用了去年添加的原生 TypeScript 支持。

建筑学

代码库遵循模块化结构：

src/
  ├── config/      # Configuration settings
  ├── types/       # TypeScript interfaces and types
  ├── tools/       # MCP tool implementations
  ├── utils/       # Utility functions
  ├── services/    # API service layer
  └── index.ts     # Main entry point

测试

运行测试套件：

npm test

对于带监视的开发模式：

npm run test:dev

贡献

欢迎贡献代码！欢迎提交 Pull 请求。

作者

埃里克·温德尔

执照

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。

Available Tools

4 tools

check_statusA

Check if the API is alive and responding.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a liveness check, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what response to expect, error behavior, or whether any side effects occur. This is adequate for a zero-parameter tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence, perfectly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately conveys the core purpose. It could be improved by mentioning the expected return value or how to interpret 'responding,' but for a basic health check, the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details because none are necessary. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource ('the API'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like get_talks, get_posts, and get_videos, which retrieve content rather than verify API health.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: if you need to verify the API is alive, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The context of sibling get_* tools suggests a read-only health check, but this is not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_postsB

Get a list of posts with optional filtering and pagination.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Filter posts by ID
`title`	No	Filter posts by title
`language`	No	Filter posts by language
`portal`	No	Filter posts by portal
`skip`	No	Number of posts to skip
`limit`	No	Maximum number of posts to return

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 retrieves a list with filtering and pagination but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of posts') and adds essential qualifiers ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and sibling differentiation, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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?

The description mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'skip', and 'limit' in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the general purpose of filtering and pagination.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of posts'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos' beyond mentioning posts specifically, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_talks' or 'get_videos', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_talksC

Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Filter talks by ID
`title`	No	Filter talks by title
`language`	No	Filter talks by language (e.g., 'spanish', 'english', 'portuguese' or direct codes like 'es', 'en', 'pt-br')
`city`	No	Filter talks by city
`country`	No	Filter talks by country
`year`	No	Filter talks by year
`skip`	No	Number of talks to skip
`limit`	No	Maximum number of talks to return
`count_only`	No	If true, returns only the count without talk details
`group_by`	No	Group counts by a specific field (language, country, city)

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. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but lacks critical behavioral details: what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included), whether it's a safe read operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by highlighting key features.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's idempotent or safe), and usage context relative to siblings. For a list-retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'optional filtering and pagination,' which aligns with parameters like 'skip,' 'limit,' and filtering fields, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a list of talks with optional filtering and pagination.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('talks'), and mentions key capabilities (filtering, pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_posts' or 'get_videos' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'get_posts' and 'get_videos' available, there's no indication of when to choose talks over posts or videos.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_videosC

Get a list of videos with optional filtering and pagination.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Filter videos by ID
`title`	No	Filter videos by title
`language`	No	Filter videos by language
`skip`	No	Number of videos to skip
`limit`	No	Maximum number of videos to return

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 filtering and pagination but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of videos') and adds key features ('with optional filtering and pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which aligns with parameters like 'id', 'title', 'language', 'skip', and 'limit', but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 ('Get a list of videos') and resource ('videos'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_posts' or 'get_talks', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves significant gaps in usage direction.

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.

4 tool updatesv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026
- Addedcheck_status
- Addedget_posts
- Addedget_talks
- Addedget_videos
4 tool updatesJan 3, 2026
- Removedcheck_status
- Removedget_posts
- Removedget_talks
- Removedget_videos
4 tool updatesAug 15, 2025
- First observedcheck_status
- First observedget_posts
- First observedget_talks
- First observedget_videos

Deploy Server

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:20 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different resource types: API status, posts, talks, and videos. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool without confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_status, get_posts, get_talks, get_videos), using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a contributions-focused server, covering status and three content types. It feels slightly thin but well-scoped, as each tool serves a distinct purpose without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness3/5

The toolset provides read-only access to posts, talks, and videos with filtering and pagination, which is adequate for retrieval. However, there are notable gaps: no create, update, or delete operations, limiting full lifecycle management of contributions in the domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
238
mcp COAuth
com.wix
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Developer Tools Content Management Systems App Automation
215
Mercado PagoOAuth
com.mercadopago.mcp
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.
Finance E-commerce & Retail App Automation
2
Telnyx A
com.telnyx.api
The Telnyx MCP server is an official implementation of the Model Context Protocol that enables AI clients (like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and OpenAI Agents) to interact with Telnyx's telephony, messaging, and AI assistant APIs. It provides comprehensive capabilities including making and managing phone calls, sending SMS/MMS messages, purchasing and configuring phone numbers, creating AI assistants with custom instructions, managing cloud storage buckets, scraping and embedding website content, and handling integration secrets. The server exists as both a local implementation and a remotely hosted version, allowing developers to integrate real-world communication infrastructure directly into AI applications.
Communication Cloud Platforms Cloud Storage
62

Related MCP Servers

Docs MCP Server
Documentation Access Search Developer Tools
probelabs
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
A flexible Model Context Protocol server that makes documentation or codebases searchable by AI assistants, allowing users to chat with code or docs by simply pointing to a git repository or folder.
Updated a year ago (2025-10-12 19:14 UTC)
1
17 npm
91
MIT
MCP TabNews Integration
Search Content Management Systems App Automation
renant
A
license
C
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI tools to interact with TabNews, providing capabilities to fetch content, comments, analytics, and RSS feeds through natural language.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-14 10:50 UTC)
9
3
MIT
CodeAlive MCPofficial
Code Analysis RAG Systems Developer Tools
CodeAlive-AI
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enhances AI agents by providing deep semantic understanding of codebases, enabling more intelligent interactions through advanced code search and contextual awareness.
Updated 14 days ago (2026-09-24 19:03 UTC)
90
MIT
Duyet MCP Server
Search Documentation Access Developer Tools
duyet
F
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
An experimental Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to access information about Duyet, including his CV, blog posts, and GitHub activity through natural language queries.
Updated 3 days ago (2026-10-05 00:48 UTC)
8
2
-

Appeared in Searches

A service for ordering groceries online

erickwendel-贡献-mcp

可用工具

与AI工具集成

检查 MCP 服务器功能

设置

与AI工具集成

光标设置

Claude 桌面设置

通过 Smithery 安装

手动设置

使用 MCPHost 的免费替代方案

示例查询

发展

特征

建筑学

测试

贡献

作者

执照

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

CodeAlive MCPofficial

Appeared in Searches