Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
YuheiNakasaka

Scrapbox MCP Server

by YuheiNakasaka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

scrapbox-mcp MCP 服务器

模型上下文协议服务器

这是一个基于 TypeScript 的 MCP 服务器，实现了一个简单的笔记系统。它通过提供以下内容来演示 MCP 的核心概念：

  • 用 URI 和元数据表示文本注释的资源

  • 创建新笔记的工具

  • 生成笔记摘要的提示

特征

资源

  • 通过note:// URI 列出并访问笔记

  • 每个笔记都有标题、内容和元数据

  • 用于简单内容访问的纯文本 MIME 类型

工具

  • create_note创建新的文本注释

    • 将标题和内容作为必需参数

    • 将注释存储在服务器状态中

提示

  • summarize_notes - 生成所有存储笔记的摘要

    • 包含所有笔记内容作为嵌入资源

    • 返回 LLM 摘要的结构化提示

Related MCP server: Browser-use MCP Server

发展

安装依赖项：

npm install

构建服务器：

npm run build

对于使用自动重建的开发：

npm run watch

安装

要与 Claude Desktop 一起使用，请添加服务器配置：

在 MacOS 上： ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json在 Windows 上： %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "scrapbox-mcp": {
      "command": "/path/to/scrapbox-mcp/build/index.js"
    }
  }
}

调试

由于 MCP 服务器通过 stdio 进行通信，调试起来可能比较困难。我们推荐使用MCP Inspector ，它以包脚本的形式提供：

npm run inspector

检查器将提供一个 URL 来访问浏览器中的调试工具。

Available Tools

1 tool
get_page_contentB

Fetch content from a Scrapbox page by URL

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesScrapbox page URL (e.g., https://scrapbox.io/project-name/page-title)

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches content but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, authentication needs), rate limits, or what 'content' entails (e.g., raw HTML, parsed text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior and output, which are needed for full contextual understanding. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for Scrapbox pages, which the schema example already suggests. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch content') and target resource ('from a Scrapbox page by URL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings since none exist, but it could be more specific about what 'content' includes (e.g., text, metadata, structure).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing page content from a Scrapbox URL, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other fetching methods) or any prerequisites. With no sibling tools, the baseline is adequate but unguided.

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.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedget_page_content
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, making disambiguation perfect. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (get_page_content), and with no other tools to compare, consistency is inherently perfect. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is too few for a server named 'Scrapbox MCP Server', which implies broader functionality for interacting with Scrapbox pages. A single fetch tool feels thin and limited in scope, suggesting an incomplete or minimal implementation.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Scrapbox server, covering only fetching page content. Obvious gaps include creating, updating, deleting, or listing pages, which are essential operations for managing a wiki or note-taking system like Scrapbox.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches