GemForge-Gemini-Tools-MCP
GemForge (инструменты Gemini)
Обзор
GemForge-Gemini-Tools-MCP : интеграция Gemini корпоративного уровня для ваших любимых агентов MCP. Усильте Claude, Roo Code и Windsurf с помощью анализа кодовой базы, поиска в реальном времени, обработки текста/PDF/изображений и многого другого.
Related MCP server: Vibe Check MCP
Быстрая навигация
Почему GemForge?
GemForge — это важный мост между Gemini AI от Google и экосистемой MCP:
Доступ в Интернет в режиме реального времени : получайте последние новости, рыночные тенденции и текущие данные с помощью
gemini_searchРасширенное рассуждение : обрабатывайте сложные логические задачи с помощью пошагового мышления с помощью
gemini_reasonCode Mastery : анализируйте полные репозитории, генерируйте решения и отлаживайте код с помощью
gemini_codeОбработка нескольких файлов : обработка более 60 форматов файлов, включая PDF-файлы, изображения и многое другое с помощью
gemini_fileopsИнтеллектуальный выбор модели : автоматически выбирает оптимальную модель Gemini для каждой задачи.
Enterprise-Ready : надежная обработка ошибок, управление ограничениями скорости и механизмы отката API
Быстрый старт
Установка в одну строку
npx @gemforge/mcp-server@latest initРучная настройка
Создайте файл конфигурации (
claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"GemForge": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["./dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"GEMINI_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}Установите и запустите:
npm install gemforge-mcp
npm startПосмотрите 30-секундную демонстрацию настройки →
Высокая надежность
GemForge создан для производственных сред:
Поддержка более 60 типов файлов : обработка всего: от кода до документов и изображений.
Автоматические откаты модели : продолжает функционировать даже при ограничениях скорости или перебоях в обслуживании
Регистрация ошибок корпоративного уровня : подробная диагностика для устранения неполадок
Устойчивость API : экспоненциальная задержка, логика повторных попыток и бесшовное переключение моделей
Полная поддержка репозитория : анализируйте целые кодовые базы с помощью настраиваемых шаблонов включения/исключения
Обработка XML-контента : специализированная обработка структурированных данных
Ключевые инструменты
Инструмент | Описание | Возможности ключа |
| Поиск информации через Интернет | Доступ к данным в реальном времени |
| Комплексное решение проблем с пошаговой логикой | Прозрачный процесс рассуждения |
| Глубокое понимание и генерация кода | Полный анализ репозитория |
| Многофайловая обработка более 60 форматов | Сравнение и преобразование документов |
{
"toolName": "gemini_search",
"toolParams": {
"query": "Latest advancements in quantum computing",
"enable_thinking": true
}
}{
"toolName": "gemini_code",
"toolParams": {
"question": "Identify improvements and new features",
"directory_path": "path/to/project",
"repomix_options": "--include \"**/*.js\" --no-gitignore"
}
}{
"toolName": "gemini_fileops",
"toolParams": {
"file_path": ["contract_v1.pdf", "contract_v2.pdf"],
"operation": "analyze",
"instruction": "Compare these contract versions and extract all significant changes."
}
}Конфигурация
GemForge предлагает гибкие возможности конфигурации:
GEMINI_API_KEY=your_api_key_here # Required: Gemini API key
GEMINI_PAID_TIER=true # Optional: Set to true if using paid tier (better rate limits)
DEFAULT_MODEL_ID=gemini-2.5-pro # Optional: Override default model selection
LOG_LEVEL=info # Optional: Set logging verbosity (debug, info, warn, error){
"mcpServers": {
"GemForge": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["./dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"GEMINI_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}GemForge разумно выбирает лучшую модель для каждой задачи:
gemini_search: используетgemini-2.5-flashдля скорости и интеграции поискаgemini_reason: Используетgemini-2.5-proдля возможностей глубокого рассужденияgemini_code: используетgemini-2.5-proдля понимания сложного кодаgemini_fileops: выбор междуgemini-2.0-flash-liteилиgemini-1.5-proв зависимости от размера файла
Переопределите параметр model_id в любом вызове инструмента или установите переменную среды DEFAULT_MODEL_ID .
Развертывание
Кузница.ai
Развертывание в один клик через Smithery.ai
Докер
docker run -e GEMINI_API_KEY=your_api_key ghcr.io/pv-bhat/gemforge:latestСамостоятельно размещенный
Инструкции по интеграции можно найти в нашем каталоге MCP.so.
Что отличает GemForge?
Кросс-экосистемная мощь : соедините искусственный интеллект Google с Клодом и другими агентами MCP
Многофайловый анализ : сравнение документов, изображений или версий кода
Умная маршрутизация : автоматический выбор модели на основе требований задачи
Готово к производству : создано для корпоративных сред

Сообщество и поддержка
Присоединяйтесь к нам : MCP Discord | GemForge Discord
Внести вклад : обсуждения на GitHub
Обратная связь : создайте проблему или поделитесь мыслями в Discord
Документация
Посетите наш сайт документации для:
Расширенные руководства по использованию
API-ссылка
Советы по устранению неполадок
Лицензия
Лицензировано по лицензии MIT. Подробности см. в разделе ЛИЦЕНЗИЯ .
Благодарности
API Google Gemini для предоставления базовых возможностей ИИ
Протокол контекста модели (MCP) для стандартизации интерфейсов инструментов ИИ
Available Tools
4 toolsgemini_codeC
Analyzes codebases using Repomix and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Answers questions about code structure, logic, and potential improvements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codebase_path | No | Path to pre-packed Repomix file | |
| directory_path | No | Path to the code directory | |
| model_id | No | Optional model ID override (advanced users only) | |
| question | Yes | Question about the codebase |
TDQS
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 mentions the tool analyzes codebases and answers questions, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function. There's no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or use cases.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between codebase_path and directory_path, what kind of questions are supported, or what the output looks like. For a code analysis tool with multiple input options, more context is needed to guide effective usage.
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 description doesn't explicitly discuss parameters, but schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The description implies the tool answers questions about codebases, which aligns with the 'question' parameter. However, it doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema already covers, such as how codebase_path and directory_path interact.
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: 'Analyzes codebases using Repomix and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Answers questions about code structure, logic, and potential improvements.' It specifies the action (analyzes/answers), resource (codebases), and technology used (Repomix and Gemini 2.5 Pro). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gemini_fileops, gemini_reason, or gemini_search, which likely have related but distinct functions.
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 mentions analyzing codebases and answering questions, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context, it's unclear how this differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gemini_fileopsA
Performs efficient operations on files (text, PDF, images, etc.) using appropriate Gemini models (Flash-Lite or 1.5 Pro for large files). Use for summarization, extraction, or basic analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to the file or array of file paths | |
| instruction | No | Specific instruction for processing | |
| model_id | No | Optional model ID override (advanced users only) | |
| operation | No | Specific operation type | |
| use_large_context_model | No | Set true if the file is very large to use Gemini 1.5 Pro |
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 model selection (Flash-Lite vs. 1.5 Pro) which adds useful context about performance characteristics, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether operations are read-only or destructive, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a file operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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 (5 parameters, file operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and output information. The schema handles parameters well, but the description should compensate more for the missing annotations and output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'operation' parameter corresponds to 'summarization, extraction, or basic analysis' and hinting at model selection logic, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'performs efficient operations on files' and specifies the types of files (text, PDF, images) and operations (summarization, extraction, basic analysis). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file operations rather than code, reasoning, or search. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb+resource combination beyond 'operations on files' which is slightly broad.
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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for summarization, extraction, or basic analysis') and mentions model selection criteria (Flash-Lite or 1.5 Pro for large files). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the operational focus implies differentiation from gemini_code, gemini_reason, and gemini_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gemini_reasonA
Solves complex problems with step-by-step reasoning using Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking. Best for math and science problems, coding challenges, and tasks requiring transparent reasoning process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | Optional file path to include with the problem | |
| model_id | No | Optional model ID override (advanced users only) | |
| problem | Yes | The complex problem or question to solve | |
| show_steps | No | Whether to show detailed reasoning steps (default: false) |
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 describes the step-by-step reasoning approach and mentions the 'transparent reasoning process,' which adds value beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output looks like (though there's no 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 perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose and usage context well but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, output format, and error handling. With no output schema, the description should ideally mention what kind of response to expect.
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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('solves complex problems with step-by-step reasoning') and resources ('using Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for 'math and science problems, coding challenges, and tasks requiring transparent reasoning process' rather than code execution, file operations, or search.
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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Best for math and science problems, coding challenges, and tasks requiring transparent reasoning process'), which implicitly suggests alternatives for other types of tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gemini_searchA
Generates responses based on the latest information using Gemini 2.0 Flash and Google Search. Best for general knowledge questions, fact-checking, and information retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enable_thinking | No | Enable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning | |
| file_path | No | Optional file path to include with the query | |
| model_id | No | Optional model ID override (advanced users only) | |
| query | Yes | Your search query or question |
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 the technology ('Gemini 2.0 Flash and Google Search') and use cases, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects. It adequately describes the core function but misses operational context that would help an agent invoke 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear functionality and good schema coverage.
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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. With no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the tool returns, but the clarity of purpose compensates somewhat.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'query' parameter's purpose through context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Generates responses') and resources ('using Gemini 2.0 Flash and Google Search'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its domain ('general knowledge questions, fact-checking, and information retrieval'). It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the technology stack and use cases.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Best for general knowledge questions, fact-checking, and information retrieval'), which implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., use gemini_code for coding tasks, gemini_reason for reasoning-heavy queries). This provides clear context for selection among siblings without needing explicit exclusions.
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 updates
v1.0.0- First observed
gemini_code - First observed
gemini_fileops - First observed
gemini_reason - First observed
gemini_search
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: gemini_code analyzes codebases, gemini_fileops handles file operations, gemini_reason solves complex problems with reasoning, and gemini_search retrieves general information. The descriptions clearly differentiate their domains and use cases, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent 'gemini_' prefix pattern with descriptive suffixes (code, fileops, reason, search). This uniform naming convention makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in style or structure.
Four tools is a reasonable number for a Gemini-focused server, covering key areas like code analysis, file operations, reasoning, and search. It feels slightly thin but well-scoped, as each tool addresses a distinct domain without unnecessary duplication.
The tool set covers major use cases for Gemini models: code analysis, file handling, reasoning, and information retrieval. Minor gaps might include more specialized operations like image generation or multimodal analysis, but the core functionalities are well-represented for general-purpose tasks.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceThe ultimate Gemini API interface for MCP hosts, intelligently selecting models for the task at hand—delivering optimal performance, minimal token cost, and seamless integration.30MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceA metacognitive pattern interrupt system that helps prevent AI assistants from overcomplicated reasoning paths by providing external validation, simplification guidance, and learning mechanisms.273 npm502MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server that enables AI agents to perform deep codebase analysis by leveraging Gemini's massive context window for cross-file analysis and intelligent file selection.428MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that gives your IDE or agent access to Google Gemini with autonomous codebase exploration, enabling deep code analysis, architectural reviews, and bug hunting.2010MIT
Appeared in Searches
- A real-time voice and text AI assistant with Google Search integration and system control
- A server for searching and finding other MCP servers
- Search for 'dia' (unspecified context)
- Tools or methods for generating academic papers
- A server for finding scientific articles, creating ad ideas, and deploying Facebook ads