MCP Retriever : recupera servidores MCP mediante búsqueda semántica
Related MCP server: MCP Registry Server
recuperar_mcps
Realizar operaciones de recuperación contra el registro MCP.
Entradas:
query (cadena): la consulta de búsqueda para la recuperación.
Para instalar MCP Registry Server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @KBB99/mcp-registry-server --client claudePrimero construya el servidor:
git clone https://github.com/KBB99/mcp-registry-server.git
cd mcp-registry-server
npm install
npm run buildPuede confirmar que el servidor está funcionando ejecutando:
node ./dist/index.jsAgregue esto a su claude_desktop_config.json :
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-registry-server": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"./path/to/build/mcp-registry-server/dist/index.js"
]
}
}
}Este servidor MCP cuenta con la licencia MIT. Esto significa que puede usar, modificar y distribuir el software libremente, sujeto a los términos y condiciones de la licencia MIT. Para más detalles, consulte el archivo de LICENCIA en el repositorio del proyecto.
Este archivo README asume que el nombre del paquete de su servidor es mcp-server-retriever . Ajuste el nombre del paquete y los detalles de instalación si difieren en su configuración. Además, asegúrese de que el script de su servidor esté correctamente compilado y de que todas las dependencias se administren correctamente en su package.json .
Performs retrieval from our registry of MCPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The query to perform retrieval on |
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 'Performs retrieval' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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 a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'MCPs' are, what the retrieval returns, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'The query to perform retrieval on'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as query syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 states the action ('Performs retrieval') and resource ('from our registry of MCPs'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of retrieval (e.g., search, lookup, fetch) or what 'MCPs' refers to, and with no siblings, differentiation isn't needed but specificity is lacking.
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, such as context, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, it's implied this is the only retrieval option, but no explicit usage scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
retrieve_mcpsScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool has a distinct and clear purpose, making disambiguation trivial.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'retrieve_mcps' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, but with no other tools to compare, it sets a consistent baseline.
A single tool for a registry server feels thin and likely insufficient for the domain. Typical registry operations might include search, list, get details, or update, but this server only offers retrieval, which is too limited for the apparent scope.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a registry domain. Only retrieval is provided, with no capabilities for searching, listing, creating, updating, or deleting MCP entries, which are common operations for a registry, leading to significant gaps.
Publish and discover MCP servers via the official MCP Registry. Powered by HAPI MCP server.
Search the official MCP registry: 17,000+ servers with trust grades, stars, tools, install config.
Search the public universe of MCP servers. This data comes from the Official MCP Registry.
Search and discover 25,000+ MCP servers across all major registries. Connect and pay autonomously.
