mcp-astgl-knowledge
mcp-astgl-knowledge
Ein MCP-Server, der es KI-Assistenten ermöglicht, Inhalte von As The Geek Learns zu durchsuchen und zu zitieren – dies umfasst MCP-Server, lokale KI, KI-Automatisierung und die Dokumentation von ASTGL-Projekten.
Wenn sich ein KI-Assistent mit diesem Server verbindet, erhält er Zugriff auf 49 indexierte Einträge (Artikel, Tutorials, Vergleiche, Anleitungen und Projektdokumentationen). Jede Antwort enthält Quell-URLs, die zurück zu astgl.ai führen.
Schnellstart
Claude Desktop
Fügen Sie dies zu Ihrer claude_desktop_config.json hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"astgl-knowledge": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-astgl-knowledge"]
}
}
}Claude Code
Fügen Sie dies zu der .mcp.json Ihres Projekts hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"astgl-knowledge": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-astgl-knowledge"]
}
}
}Cursor / Generischer MCP-Client
{
"mcpServers": {
"astgl-knowledge": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-astgl-knowledge"]
}
}
}Mit Registrierung (500 Abfragen/Tag)
Registrieren Sie sich über das register-Tool, um einen API-Schlüssel zu erhalten, und fügen Sie diesen dann Ihrer Konfiguration hinzu:
{
"mcpServers": {
"astgl-knowledge": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-astgl-knowledge"],
"env": {
"ASTGL_API_KEY": "astgl_your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Related MCP server: moss-brain
Tools
search_articles
Durchsuchen Sie die Wissensdatenbank nach einer Abfrage. Gibt rangierte Ergebnisse mit Relevanz-Scores und Quell-URLs zurück.
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| string | Ja | Suchanfrage (z. B. "how to build an MCP server") |
| number | Nein | Maximale Ergebnisse, 1-20 (Standard: 5) |
| string | Nein | Filtern nach Typ: article, tutorial, faq, comparison, guide, newsletter, project |
get_answer
Erhalten Sie eine direkte Antwort auf eine spezifische Frage. Bevorzugt FAQ-Einträge für prägnante Antworten.
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| string | Ja | Eine spezifische Frage (z. B. "What is an MCP server?") |
| string | Nein | Filtern nach Inhaltstyp |
get_tutorial
Erhalten Sie Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitungen aus Tutorial- und Guide-Inhalten.
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| string | Ja | Was Sie lernen möchten (z. B. "setup Ollama on Mac") |
compare_topics
Direkter Vergleich zweier Themen.
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| string | Ja | Erstes Thema |
| string | Ja | Zweites Thema |
get_latest
Erhalten Sie die zuletzt hinzugefügten Inhalte.
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| number | Nein | Maximale Ergebnisse, 1-20 (Standard: 5) |
list_topics
Durchsuchen Sie alle Themen in der Wissensdatenbank mit Inhaltstypen und Abschnittsüberschriften.
register
Registrieren Sie Ihre E-Mail-Adresse, um 500 Abfragen/Tag freizuschalten (statt 50).
Parameter | Typ | Erforderlich | Beschreibung |
| string | Ja | Ihre E-Mail-Adresse |
Inhaltstypen
Typ | Anzahl | Beschreibung |
article | 29 | Informative Inhalte über MCP, lokale KI, Automatisierung |
project | 9 | ASTGL-Projektdokumentation (KlockThingy, Revri, Cortex, etc.) |
tutorial | 8 | Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitungen |
comparison | 2 | Themenanalyse im direkten Vergleich |
guide | 1 | Umfassendes Referenzmaterial |
newsletter | — | Persönliche Updates und Ankündigungen |
faq | — | Primär F&A-Inhalte |
Ratenbegrenzungen
Stufe | Limit | Wie man es erhält |
Öffentlich | 50 Abfragen/Tag | Standard (anonym) |
Registriert | 500 Abfragen/Tag | Verwenden Sie das |
Die Limits werden um Mitternacht UTC zurückgesetzt. Informationen zur Ratenbegrenzung sind in jeder Antwort enthalten.
Funktionsweise
Die Wissensdatenbank wird aus ASTGL-Artikeln unter Verwendung semantischer Embeddings (nomic-embed-text, 768 Dimensionen) vorberechnet. Die Inhalte werden nach Abschnitten und FAQ-Einträgen unterteilt, eingebettet und in einer SQLite-Datenbank mit sqlite-vec für die Vektor-Ähnlichkeitssuche gespeichert.
Endbenutzer benötigen kein Ollama – alle Embeddings sind vorberechnet und im npm-Paket enthalten. Die einzige Laufzeitvoraussetzung ist Node.js.
Leistung
Typische Antwortzeit: 100-500ms (Embedding-Suche + Vektorsuche)
Embedding-Ergebnisse werden im Arbeitsspeicher zwischengespeichert (LRU, 200 Einträge) – wiederholte Abfragen sind nahezu sofort verfügbar
Ollama-Aufrufe beinhalten 10s Timeout + automatische Wiederholung
Abfrage-Logging erfolgt asynchron/gebatcht, um Antworten nicht zu blockieren
Ratenbegrenzungsprüfungen werden für 5 Sekunden zwischengespeichert
Für Betreuer
Einrichtung
git clone https://github.com/Jmeg8r/mcp-astgl-knowledge.git
cd mcp-astgl-knowledge
npm installSkripte
Skript | Beschreibung |
| TypeScript kompilieren |
| MCP-Server im Entwicklungsmodus ausführen (tsx) |
| Kompilierten MCP-Server ausführen |
| knowledge.db aus lokalem Markdown neu erstellen (erfordert Ollama) |
| Projektdokumentationen aus astgl-site projects.json indexieren |
| RSS/Sitemap auf neue Inhalte prüfen |
| Entdeckte Inhalte verarbeiten (klassifizieren, einbetten, indexieren) |
| Entdecken + Strukturieren in einem Schritt |
| AEO-Analysebericht generieren |
| Prüfungen auf Inhaltslücken ausführen |
| Auf veraltete Inhalte und Änderungen der Ökosystemversion prüfen |
| Manueller KI-Zitierungstest |
| Interne Artikellinks via Vektorähnlichkeit generieren |
Umgebungsvariablen
Variable | Standard | Beschreibung |
|
| Ollama-Endpunkt (nur Dev/Rebuild) |
|
| Embedding-Modell |
| — | Discord-Webhook für Berichte/Warnungen |
| — | API-Schlüssel für registrierte Stufe |
|
| Lokale Markdown-Quelle |
|
| Projektdatenquelle |
Automatisierte Jobs
Job | Zeitplan | Zweck |
Content-Pipeline | Alle 6h | Neue Inhalte entdecken + strukturieren |
Täglicher Bericht | 8 Uhr morgens | Abfrage-Analysen + Gesundheitsmetriken → Discord |
Inhaltswarnungen | 9 Uhr morgens | Lückenerkennung, Null-Zitierungen, Wettbewerberscan → Discord |
Frischeprüfung | 10 Uhr morgens | Veraltete Inhalte + Verfolgung der Ökosystemversion → Discord |
Lizenz
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolsget_answerC
Get a direct answer to a question about MCP servers, local AI, or AI automation from ASTGL's knowledge base. Returns the best matching answer with source URL and related articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | A specific question (e.g., 'What is an MCP server?') |
TDQS
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 returns 'the best matching answer with source URL and related articles', which gives some output context, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or how 'best matching' is determined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and output. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the output details more seamlessly.
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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, though it does mention 'source URL and related articles'.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'question' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of effective questions or formatting tips). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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: 'Get a direct answer to a question about MCP servers, local AI, or AI automation from ASTGL's knowledge base.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('direct answer'), and scope ('about MCP servers, local AI, or AI automation'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_topics' or 'search_articles' beyond mentioning it returns 'the best matching answer'.
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 'list_topics' or 'search_articles'. It mentions the tool returns 'the best matching answer with source URL and related articles', but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over other search or listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_topicsB
List all topics covered in the ASTGL knowledge base. Shows article titles, descriptions, URLs, and section headings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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. It mentions what data is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and output format. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description should provide more complete context about behavioral aspects. While it adequately describes what the tool does, it lacks information about return format details, error handling, performance characteristics, or limitations. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description doesn't compensate sufficiently.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 ('List all topics') and resource ('ASTGL knowledge base'), with specific details about what information is shown (article titles, descriptions, URLs, section headings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_answer' and 'search_articles' by focusing on comprehensive topic listing rather than specific answers or filtered searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the text itself.
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 'search_articles' or 'get_answer'. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesC
Search ASTGL articles about MCP servers, local AI, and AI automation. Returns relevant article sections with source URLs for citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., 'how to build an MCP server') | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 5) |
TDQS
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 the tool returns 'relevant article sections with source URLs for citation', which gives some context about output format. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or how relevance is determined.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the first sentence could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the topic scope more smoothly.
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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool searches and what it returns, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation or how results are ranked. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the search scope but doesn't provide additional context about how the 'query' parameter should be formulated or how 'limit' affects results beyond what the schema already states.
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: searching ASTGL articles about specific topics (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) and returning relevant sections with source URLs. It specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'ASTGL articles', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'.
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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_answer' or 'list_topics'. The description mentions the search scope (MCP servers, local AI, AI automation) but doesn't indicate when this tool is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites for its use.
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.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_answer - First observed
list_topics - First observed
search_articles
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_answer retrieves direct answers to specific questions, list_topics enumerates all available topics, and search_articles performs keyword-based searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_answer, list_topics, search_articles) with clear, descriptive verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
Three tools is reasonable for a knowledge base server, covering core operations like querying, listing, and searching. It might feel slightly thin if advanced filtering or topic management were expected, but it's well-scoped for basic access.
The tools provide good coverage for accessing a knowledge base: retrieving answers, listing content, and searching. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or managing the knowledge base, but this is acceptable if the server is read-only.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for querying Forkast documentation
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceLocal-first RAG indexing and semantic search MCP server. Enables document retrieval and context-aware queries using local embedding models.36 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that provides semantic memory with search, related-content traversal, and write-back capabilities, all powered by local embeddings of your notes, documents, and chat histories.3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for querying a personal knowledge base using semantic RAG, powered by DeepSeek and local embeddings from Ollama.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that grounds AI answers in a local, maintained knowledge base and optionally fills gaps from the web, fully local with SQLite.AGPL 3.0