EAG MCP Demo
EAG v3 — MCP-демо с интерфейсом Prefab
Сервер FastMCP с тремя инструментами, которые задействуют (1) интернет, (2) локальный CRUD файлов и (3) генеративный интерфейс через Prefab. Предназначен для работы внутри Claude Desktop.
Инструменты
Инструмент | Тип | Назначение |
| интернет | API DuckDuckGo Instant Answer — возвращает краткое содержание + связанные темы |
| локальный CRUD | один инструмент, выполняющий действия ( |
| UI | отображает сохраненные заметки в виде сетки карточек Prefab (использует |
Related MCP server: MCP + CrewAI Agentic Integration
Настройка
Требуются uv (brew install uv) и Claude Desktop.
cd /Users/nitingangwar/Documents/Code/eagv3/mcp
uv syncПодключение к Claude Desktop
Отредактируйте файл ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json и добавьте (или объедините) блок mcpServers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"eag-mcp-demo": {
"command": "/opt/homebrew/bin/uv",
"args": [
"run",
"--directory",
"/Users/nitingangwar/Documents/Code/eagv3/mcp",
"python",
"server.py"
]
}
}
}Перезапустите Claude Desktop. Индикатор MCP должен показать eag-mcp-demo с тремя инструментами.
Вариант на чистом Python (без uv)
python3 -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/pip install -e .Затем в конфигурации Claude Desktop используйте:
"command": "/Users/nitingangwar/Documents/Code/eagv3/mcp/.venv/bin/python",
"args": ["/Users/nitingangwar/Documents/Code/eagv3/mcp/server.py"]Демонстрационный запрос
Вставьте это в Claude Desktop после подключения сервера:
Найди информацию о владельцах Tata Sons через веб-поиск, сохрани краткое резюме из 2–3 предложений в мой файл заметок под ключом
tata_sons, а затем открой панель управления, чтобы я мог ее увидеть.
Ожидаемое поведение:
web_search("Tata Sons ownership")→ краткое содержание из DDG.notes_file("create", "tata_sons", "<summary>")→ запись вnotes.json.show_dashboard()→ отрисовка сетки карточек Prefab с одной карточкой.
Запустите снова с другой компанией (например, "Reliance Industries"), и на панели управления появятся две карточки.
Дымовое тестирование
# Server starts and blocks on stdin (correct):
uv run python server.py
# Or interactive inspector:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv run python server.pyВ инспекторе: перечислите инструменты, вызовите web_search("Tata Sons"), затем вызовите notes_file("create", "x", "y") и убедитесь, что notes.json обновился на диске.
Резервные варианты
Рендерер Prefab не запускается (Claude Desktop возвращает JSON вместо UI): измените декоратор
show_dashboardс@mcp.tool(app=True)на обычный@mcp.toolи сделайте так, чтобы он возвращал Markdown-таблицу, построенную на основеnotes.json.DuckDuckGo возвращает пустой результат для запроса: у DDG есть мгновенные ответы только для известных сущностей. Используйте известные компании / людей / места для демонстрации.
Файлы
server.py # FastMCP server with the 3 tools
notes.json # backing store for notes_file (starts as {})
pyproject.toml # deps: fastmcp[apps], prefab-ui==0.19.1, httpxAvailable Tools
3 toolsnotes_fileA
CRUD on local notes.json.
Actions:
create - add a new note: action='create', key='foo', content='...'
read - fetch one note: action='read', key='foo'
update - replace existing: action='update', key='foo', content='...'
delete - remove a note: action='delete', key='foo'
list - list all keys: action='list'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| key | No | ||
| content | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not mention potential destructive effects (update/delete), error handling, atomicity, or file locking. The transparency is minimal beyond basic CRUD semantics.
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, with a single introductory line followed by a list of actions and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 simplicity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the action parameter well. However, it does not clarify behavior for empty 'key' or 'content' defaults, nor potential side effects. Still, it is largely complete for a basic CRUD 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, but the description adds meaningful context by providing examples for each action, clarifying how 'key' and 'content' are used per action. This adds value beyond the schema definition.
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 'CRUD on local notes.json' and enumerates each action with examples, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from siblings 'show_dashboard' and 'web_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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (to manage notes), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or discuss alternatives. Given the unrelated siblings, no confusion arises, but explicit exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
show_dashboardA
Render saved notes as a Prefab card grid.
Call this AFTER saving notes via notes_file to display them visually
to the user. Reads notes.json fresh on each call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses that it reads notes.json fresh on each call, informing the agent about data source and potential performance. Missing edge cases like missing notes.json, but sufficient for a simple tool.
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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose, then usage and behavior. Every sentence adds value.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers main action, usage context, and a behavioral trait. Misses what happens when no notes exist, but overall adequate.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no extra param info, but baseline for zero-param tools 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 tool renders saved notes as a Prefab card grid. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings (notes_file for saving, web_search unrelated).
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?
Explicitly instructs to call AFTER saving via notes_file, establishing a clear ordering and naming the prerequisite sibling. This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_searchA
Search the web via DuckDuckGo Instant Answer API.
Returns a plain-text block with the abstract, source URL, and top related topics. Best for well-known entities (companies, people, places). Returns 'no results' if the query has no instant answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses the return format (plain-text block with abstract, source URL, topics) and behavior for no results. However, it omits API limitations, rate limits, and whether the operation is read-only.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), reducing the need to describe return values. The description covers usage context and edge cases adequately for a simple single-parameter search 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 one parameter 'query' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on query semantics beyond implying a search term, failing to add meaningful guidance.
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 searches the web via DuckDuckGo API, specifying the output format and appropriate use cases (well-known entities). This differentiates it from sibling tools like notes_file or show_dashboard.
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 a clear context for when to use the tool ('Best for well-known entities'), but does not explicitly exclude or compare to alternatives. Given unrelated siblings, this is sufficient.
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
v0.1.0- First observed
notes_file - First observed
show_dashboard - First observed
web_search
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools cover completely different areas: local note CRUD (notes_file), visual dashboard (show_dashboard), and external web search (web_search). There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, though the pattern varies slightly (notes_file is a noun, show_dashboard is verb+noun, web_search is noun+verb). Still consistent and readable.
With only 3 tools, the set is small but well-suited for a demo server. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant. A few more tools might be expected for a full-featured service, but for a demo it's appropriate.
The notes_file tool provides full CRUD and listing, show_dashboard adds visualization, and web_search covers external search. There are no obvious gaps for the stated demo purpose.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
MCP server unifying ERPs, CRMs, APIs and knowledge base for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini.
The Remote MCP server acts as a standardized bridge between LLM applications (like Claude, ChatGPT, and Cursor) and external services, enabling AI agents to access external tools and resources. Its primary capability is providing a centralized search tool to discover other MCP servers and their respective tools. Unlike local implementations, it runs remotely with OAuth authentication and permission controls for security.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA FastMCP-based server that supports SSE real-time event streaming and tool calling, with features for text-to-JSON conversion and grouping text by JSON templates.MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA FastMCP server providing real-time weather, news retrieval, and local note management tools for autonomous CrewAI agents. It enables context-aware multi-agent workflows with observability and high-speed inference integration.4-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA storage and retrieval MCP server for AI agents using FastMCP, enabling persistent knowledge base with semantic search and automatic linking.3231 PyPI302MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server providing persistent memory, semantic search, versioned storage, webhook fanout, and unified LLM routing for AI agents via FastAPI runtime with multiple backend options.35Apache 2.0