Сервер протокола контекста модели (MCP), который позволяет Claude Desktop создавать, визуализировать и моделировать квантовые схемы с использованием Qiskit и Qiskit Aer.
После подключения к Claude Desktop вы можете вести естественные диалоги, например:
"Создай состояние Белла и смоделируй его с 1024 запусками"
"Покажи мне диаграмму схемы GHZ"
"Запусти состояние Белла с высоким уровнем шума и объясни, что изменилось"
"Создай пользовательскую схему из этой строки QASM"
Claude будет вызывать базовые инструменты автоматически — ручной вызов инструментов не требуется.
Related MCP server: Qiskit MCP Server
3 инструмента: create_circuit, visualize_circuit, run_simulation
5 предустановленных схем: состояние Белла, GHZ-3, суперпозиция, Дойча-Йожи, случайная-4
Пользовательский QASM: принимает любую корректную строку OpenQASM 2.0
Моделирование шума: идеальный, низкий шум (p=0.001), высокий шум (p=0.01) через деполяризующую ошибку
1 ресурс: resource://noise-presets — список доступных конфигураций шума
1 подсказка: simulate_walkthrough — шаблон для пошагового обучения
Python 3.13+
Anaconda или любой менеджер окружений Python
git clone <repo-url>
cd qiskit-sim-mcppip install -e .Это установит mcp[cli], qiskit и qiskit-aer в ваше окружение Python.
python -c "
import asyncio
from quantum_mcp_demo.server import mcp
tools = asyncio.run(mcp.list_tools())
resources = asyncio.run(mcp.list_resources())
prompts = asyncio.run(mcp.list_prompts())
print('Tools:', [t.name for t in tools])
print('Resources:', [r.uri for r in resources])
print('Prompts:', [p.name for p in prompts])
"Ожидаемый вывод:
Tools: ['create_circuit', 'visualize_circuit', 'run_simulation']
Resources: [AnyUrl('resource://noise-presets')]
Prompts: ['simulate_walkthrough']uv run mcp dev src/quantum_mcp_demo/server.pyОткройте http://localhost:6274 в браузере. Используйте вкладку Tools, чтобы вызвать каждый инструмент вручную перед подключением к Claude Desktop.
Найдите файл конфигурации Claude Desktop:
ОС | Путь |
macOS |
|
Windows |
|
Добавьте эту запись внутри объекта mcpServers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"qiskit-sim-mcp": {
"command": "/opt/anaconda3/bin/python",
"args": [
"-m",
"quantum_mcp_demo.server"
]
}
}
}Примечание: Замените
/opt/anaconda3/bin/pythonна ваш фактический путь к Python. Выполнитеwhich python, чтобы найти его.
Полностью закройте Claude Desktop (Cmd+Q на macOS), затем откройте его снова. В новом диалоге значок молотка (🔨) в поле ввода чата подтвердит, что инструменты MCP загружены.
"Создай схему состояния Белла, покажи мне диаграмму, а затем смоделируй её 1024 раза с идеальным и высоким уровнем шума."
Claude вызовет:
create_circuit(preset="bell") → получит circuit_id
visualize_circuit(circuit_id=...) → покажет диаграмму вентилей H + CNOT
run_simulation(circuit_id=..., shots=1024, noise_preset="ideal") → ~50% |00⟩, ~50% |11⟩
run_simulation(circuit_id=..., shots=1024, noise_preset="high_noise") → ухудшенные результаты, появятся |01⟩ и |10⟩
"Запусти эту схему: OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; h q[0]; cx q[0],q[1]; measure q -> c;"
Claude проанализирует строку QASM и запустит её через тот же конвейер моделирования.
"Сравни состояние GHZ при идеальном и высоком уровне шума — как шум влияет на запутанность?"
src/quantum_mcp_demo/
├── server.py # MCP server entry point
├── circuits/
│ ├── presets.py # 5 named preset circuits
│ └── store.py # In-memory circuit storage (UUID-keyed)
├── tools/
│ ├── create_circuit.py # Tool: create from preset or QASM
│ ├── visualize.py # Tool: HTML diagram + gate JSON
│ └── simulate.py # Tool: AerSimulator + noise modeling
├── resources/
│ └── noise_presets.py # Resource: noise configuration list
├── prompts/
│ └── walkthrough.py # Prompt: guided simulation conversation
└── utils/
├── serialization.py # numpy → Python int conversion
└── errors.py # MCP error response builderПредустановка | Кубиты | Демонстрирует | ||
| 2 | Запутанность — разделение 50/50 на ` | 00⟩ | 11⟩` |
| 3 | Многокубитная запутанность | ||
| 1 | Равная суперпозиция через Адамар | ||
| 3 | Квантовый алгоритм — интерференция | ||
| 4 | Стресс-тест шума — случайные вентили с фиксированным зерном |
Предустановка | Деполяризация p | Описание |
| нет | Идеальное моделирование |
| 0.001 | Реалистичное устройство ближайшего будущего |
| 0.01 | Агрессивный шум — заметная деградация |
Claude Desktop не показывает значок молотка
Закройте и полностью перезапустите Claude Desktop после редактирования конфигурации
Проверьте, что JSON конфигурации корректен (нет лишних запятых)
Проверьте путь к Python: which python
python -m quantum_mcp_demo.server выдает ошибку
Убедитесь, что вы выполнили pip install -e . из корня проекта
Проверьте версию Python: python --version (требуется 3.13+)
Конфликт портов при запуске MCP Inspector
kill -9 $(lsof -t -i :6274) 2>/dev/null; kill -9 $(lsof -t -i :6277) 2>/dev/nullМоделирование возвращает неожиданные результаты
Несоответствия количества запусков определяются автоматически и возвращаются как isError: true
Попробуйте уменьшить shots (например, 512), если видите ошибки
Create a quantum circuit from a named preset or an OpenQASM 2.0 string. Provide exactly one of: preset (bell|ghz_3|superposition|deutsch_jozsa|random_4) or qasm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No | ||
| qasm | No |
| 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 must carry full burden. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.
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 that an output schema exists (implied), the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential parameter modes and preset list. However, it lacks error handling guidance (e.g., what happens if both or neither are provided) and interaction with sibling tools, but the description remains adequate for a simple creation tool.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by specifying that exactly one parameter must be provided and listing the preset options. It clarifies that qasm is an OpenQASM 2.0 string, adding semantic value. However, it does not detail the format or constraints further.
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 creates a quantum circuit from a named preset or an OpenQASM 2.0 string, listing specific preset options. This distinguishes it from siblings (run_simulation, visualize_circuit) which perform different actions.
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 implies usage for circuit creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context for using presets versus QASM.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a stored circuit on AerSimulator with optional depolarizing noise. noise_preset: ideal | low_noise | high_noise. Returns counts, probabilities, metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| circuit_id | Yes | ||
| shots | Yes | ||
| noise_preset | 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. It mentions returns (counts, probabilities, metadata) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavior is partially transparent.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and presents noise options succinctly. No wasted words.
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 tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the platform and noise but omits parameter constraints and fails to distinguish output structure beyond mentioning three fields. It is adequate but not rich.
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 must compensate. It explains noise_preset with enumerated values, but leaves circuit_id and shots undocumented (no hint on circuit_id source or shots default/range). Only 1 of 3 parameters gains meaning.
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 runs a stored circuit on AerSimulator with optional noise, and the verb 'Run' paired with 'stored circuit' distinguishes it from sibling tools 'create_circuit' and 'visualize_circuit'.
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 implies usage context (run a stored circuit) and provides specific noise preset options (ideal, low_noise, high_noise), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state prerequisites like needing a pre-existing circuit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Visualize a stored circuit as HTML and a structured gate list for narration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| circuit_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., circuit must exist). This leaves uncertainty about its safety and failure modes.
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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and outputs.
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 presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to specify error conditions, the format of the gate list, or prerequisite existence checks for the circuit.
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 single parameter 'circuit_id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's title. No guidance on what constitutes a valid circuit_id or how to obtain it.
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 verb 'visualize' and resource 'stored circuit', and specifies the output as HTML and a gate list for narration. This distinguishes it from siblings 'create_circuit' and 'run_simulation'.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the context of having a stored circuit to visualize, but alternatives like run_simulation are not differentiated.
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.
v0.1.0create_circuitrun_simulationvisualize_circuitScored across 3 tools
Each tool addresses a distinct phase of quantum circuit workflow: creation, simulation, and visualization. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun convention (create_circuit, run_simulation, visualize_circuit), making their purpose immediately clear.
Three tools cover the core lifecycle adequately. While more tools (e.g., list, delete) could be added, the current count is reasonable for a focused server.
The tools enable creating, running with noise, and visualizing circuits. Missing operations like listing or deleting circuits are minor gaps but do not severely hinder basic usage.
MCP server for OpenAI API (chat completions, image generation, embeddings) via AceDataCloud
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
Use AI models for chat, image, and video generation from Claude Code and other MCP hosts.
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
