Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
auchenberg

Claude Code MCP

by auchenberg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

克劳德代码 MCP

Claude Code MCP 是Claude Code作为模型上下文协议 (MCP)服务器的实现。该项目允许您通过标准化的 MCP 接口使用 Claude Code 强大的软件工程功能。

⚠️ 免责声明 ⚠️

Claude Code MCP 是由 DevinAI 自动生成的项目，DevinAI 受提示分析 Claude Code 代码库，并生成 MCP 服务器。

这是一个概念证明，我不建议任何人使用。

什么是克劳德密码？

Claude Code 是 Anthropic 开发的用于软件工程任务的 CLI 工具，由 Claude 提供支持。它提供了一系列工具和功能，可帮助开发人员完成以下工作：

  • 代码生成和编辑

  • 代码审查和分析

  • 调试和故障排除

  • 文件系统操作

  • Shell命令执行

  • 项目探索与理解

原始实现可作为 JavaScript 模块使用，该模块定义了与 Claude 的 API 交互的提示和工具。

Related MCP server: MCP Tool

什么是 MCP？

模型上下文协议 (MCP) 是 AI 模型的标准化接口，可实现不同模型和提供商之间一致的交互模式。MCP 定义：

  • 工具：模型可以调用来执行操作的函数

  • 资源：模型可以访问的外部数据

  • 提示：预定义对话模板

通过将 Claude Code 实现为 MCP 服务器，我们使其功能可供任何兼容 MCP 的客户端使用，从而实现更高的互操作性和灵活性。

特征

  • 作为 MCP 服务器全面实现 Claude Code 功能

  • 提供文件操作、shell 命令和代码分析的工具

  • 公开用于访问文件系统和环境信息的资源

  • 包括一般 CLI 交互和代码审查的提示

  • 与任何 MCP 客户端兼容

  • 具有完全类型安全性的 TypeScript 实现

安装

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/auchenberg/claude-code-mcp.git
cd claude-code-mcp

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

用法

作为独立服务器运行

# Start the server
npm start

与 MCP 客户端一起使用

Claude Code MCP 可与任何 MCP 客户端配合使用。以下是使用 MCP TypeScript SDK 连接的示例：

import { Client } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/client/index.js";
import { StdioClientTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/client/stdio.js";

const transport = new StdioClientTransport({
  command: "node",
  args: ["dist/index.js"]
});

const client = new Client(
  {
    name: "example-client",
    version: "1.0.0"
  },
  {
    capabilities: {
      prompts: {},
      resources: {},
      tools: {}
    }
  }
);

await client.connect(transport);

// Use Claude Code through MCP
const result = await client.callTool({
  name: "bash",
  arguments: {
    command: "ls -la"
  }
});

console.log(result);

可用工具

Claude Code MCP 提供以下工具：

  • bash ：执行带有安全限制和超时选项的 shell 命令

  • readFile ：从文件系统读取文件，带有行偏移和限制选项

  • listFiles ：列出文件和目录以及详细的元数据

  • searchGlob ：搜索与 glob 模式匹配的文件

  • grep ：使用正则表达式模式支持在文件中搜索文本

  • think ：用于思考复杂问题的无操作工具

  • codeReview ：分析和审查代码中的错误、安全问题和最佳实践

  • editFile ：创建或编辑具有指定内容的文件

工具详细信息

狂欢

{
  command: string;  // The shell command to execute
  timeout?: number; // Optional timeout in milliseconds (max 600000)
}

bash 工具包含安全限制，可防止执行潜在危险的命令，如curl 、 wget等。

读文件

{
  file_path: string; // The absolute path to the file to read
  offset?: number;   // The line number to start reading from
  limit?: number;    // The number of lines to read
}

搜索全局

{
  pattern: string;  // The glob pattern to match files against
  path?: string;    // The directory to search in (defaults to current working directory)
}

grep

{
  pattern: string;   // The regular expression pattern to search for
  path?: string;     // The directory to search in (defaults to current working directory)
  include?: string;  // File pattern to include in the search (e.g. "*.js", "*.{ts,tsx}")
}

可用资源

  • file ：访问文件内容（ file://{path} ）

    • 提供对文件内容的直接访问，并进行适当的错误处理

    • 返回指定文件的全文内容

  • 目录：列出目录内容（ dir://{path} ）

    • 返回文件信息对象的 JSON 数组

    • 每个对象包括名称、路径、isDirectory、大小和修改日期

  • environment ：获取系统环境信息（ env://info ）

    • 返回有关系统环境的信息

    • 包括 Node.js 版本、npm 版本、操作系统信息和环境变量

可用提示

  • generalCLI ：Claude 代码的通用 CLI 提示符

    • 为 Claude 提供全面的系统提示，使其充当 CLI 工具

    • 包括语气、风格、主动性和遵循惯例的指导

    • 自动包含环境详细信息

  • codeReview ：提示审查代码

    • 代码审查任务的专门提示

    • 分析代码中的错误、安全漏洞、性能问题和最佳实践

  • prReview ：提示审查拉取请求

    • PR 审核任务的专门提示

    • 分析 PR 变化并提供全面的反馈

  • initCodebase ：使用代码库文档初始化一个新的 CLAUDE.md 文件

    • 为 build/lint/test 命令和代码风格指南创建文档

    • 有助于使用 Claude Code 创建新项目

发展

# Run in development mode with auto-reload
npm run dev

建筑学

Claude Code MCP 采用模块化架构构建：

claude-code-mcp/
├── src/
│   ├── server/
│   │   ├── claude-code-server.ts  # Main server setup
│   │   ├── tools.ts               # Tool implementations
│   │   ├── prompts.ts             # Prompt definitions
│   │   └── resources.ts           # Resource implementations
│   ├── utils/
│   │   ├── bash.ts                # Shell command utilities
│   │   └── file.ts                # File system utilities
│   └── index.ts                   # Entry point
├── package.json
├── tsconfig.json
└── README.md

实施遵循以下关键原则：

  1. 模块化：每个组件（工具、提示、资源）都在单独的模块中实现

  2. 类型安全：所有组件的完整 TypeScript 类型定义

  3. 错误处理：针对所有操作的全面错误处理

  4. 安全：针对潜在危险操作的安全限制

实现细节

MCP 服务器设置

主服务器在claude-code-server.ts中设置：

export async function setupClaudeCodeServer(server: McpServer): Promise<void> {
  // Set up Claude Code tools
  setupTools(server);
  
  // Set up Claude Code prompts
  setupPrompts(server);
  
  // Set up Claude Code resources
  setupResources(server);
}

工具实现

工具是使用 MCP SDK 的工具注册方法实现的：

server.tool(
  "toolName",
  "Tool description",
  {
    // Zod schema for tool arguments
    param1: z.string().describe("Parameter description"),
    param2: z.number().optional().describe("Optional parameter description")
  },
  async ({ param1, param2 }) => {
    // Tool implementation
    return {
      content: [{ type: "text", text: "Result" }]
    };
  }
);

资源实施

资源使用MCP SDK的资源注册方法实现：

server.resource(
  "resourceName",
  new ResourceTemplate("resource://{variable}", { list: undefined }),
  async (uri, variables) => {
    // Resource implementation
    return {
      contents: [{
        uri: uri.href,
        text: "Resource content"
      }]
    };
  }
);

执照

麻省理工学院

致谢

贡献

欢迎贡献代码！欢迎提交 Pull 请求。

免责声明

该项目与 Anthropic 无正式关联。Claude Code 是 Anthropic 的产品，而本项目是 Claude Code 作为 MCP 服务器的独立实现。

Available Tools

8 tools
bashC

Execute a shell command

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe shell command to execute
timeoutNoOptional timeout in milliseconds (max 600000)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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. 'Execute a shell command' implies a potentially powerful and risky operation, but the description doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on timeout. This is a significant gap for a tool that can perform arbitrary system operations.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool that executes arbitrary shell commands with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the significant behavioral complexity, security implications, or what the tool returns. Given the power and risk of this operation, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain command syntax, shell environment, or timeout behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Execute a shell command' clearly states the verb ('execute') and resource ('shell command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also execute commands or interact with the shell environment, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'editFile' or 'listFiles'. There's no mention of prerequisites, safety considerations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for appropriate tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

codeReviewC

Review code for bugs, security issues, and best practices

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe code to review

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states the tool reviews code but doesn't describe how it operates (e.g., static analysis, AI-based review), what permissions or resources it requires, or the format of results. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by listing review aspects in bullet points) for better clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (code review can involve nuanced analysis), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the review outputs (e.g., a list of issues, a summary), how comprehensive it is, or any limitations, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'code' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as code language support or review depth, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('review code') and resources ('bugs, security issues, and best practices'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'think' or 'bash' that might also analyze code, preventing a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for code review, or compare it to sibling tools like 'think' for analysis or 'bash' for execution, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

editFileC

Create or edit a file

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesThe absolute path to the file to edit
contentYesThe new content for the file

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the operation without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects like creating directories. The vague 'create or edit' leaves critical behavior ambiguous.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context with siblings.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('file_path' and 'content'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for the operation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create or edit') and resource ('a file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'readFile' or 'listFiles' beyond the basic operation type.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file permissions), when editing is preferred over creating, or how it relates to siblings like 'readFile' for viewing or 'bash' for file operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

grepC

Search for text in files

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYesThe regular expression pattern to search for in file contents
pathNoThe directory to search in. Defaults to the current working directory.
includeNoFile pattern to include in the search (e.g. "*.js", "*.{ts,tsx}")

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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. 'Search for text in files' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is safe, if it requires permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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—'Search for text in files' is front-loaded and perfectly concise. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., matches, line numbers, file names), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances like case sensitivity or recursion. For a search tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'pattern', 'path', and 'include'. According to the rules, when schema description coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Search for text in files' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (text in files), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'searchGlob' or 'listFiles' that might also involve searching or file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'searchGlob' or 'listFiles'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

listFilesC

Lists files and directories in a given path

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe absolute path to the directory to list

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states the basic action but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it returns recursive listings, handles symbolic links, includes hidden files, or what happens if the path is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond the simple listing.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs file system operations. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like error handling, output format, or behavioral details (e.g., recursion, hidden files), which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in real scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'The absolute path to the directory to list'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('Lists') and the target ('files and directories in a given path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'searchGlob' or 'grep' that might also involve file operations, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'searchGlob' or 'grep'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether the path must exist or be accessible, or when other tools might be more appropriate for similar tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

readFileC

Read a file from the local filesystem

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesThe absolute path to the file to read
offsetNoThe line number to start reading from
limitNoThe number of lines to read

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states the basic action but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for missing files), performance considerations, or output format (e.g., text vs. binary). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (file I/O with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like return values, error cases, or security implications, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively in real scenarios.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (file_path, offset, limit). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how offset and limit interact or file encoding issues. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a file from the local filesystem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'grep' or 'searchGlob' that also involve file reading operations, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'grep' for searching or 'listFiles' for directory contents. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as file existence or permissions, which leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

searchGlobC

Search for files matching a pattern

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYesThe glob pattern to match files against
pathNoThe directory to search in. Defaults to the current working directory.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for files but doesn't describe how it behaves—e.g., whether it returns full paths, file contents, or metadata; if it's recursive or case-sensitive; or any performance or permission considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the core functionality.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a file search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of file paths or details), how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('pattern' and 'path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of glob patterns or path constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for files matching a pattern' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('files'), specifying the action and target. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'grep' or 'listFiles', which might offer similar file-searching capabilities, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 doesn't mention when to prefer 'searchGlob' over 'grep' for pattern matching or 'listFiles' for file listing, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

thinkC

A tool for thinking through complex problems

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thoughtYesYour thoughts

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the tool is for 'thinking through complex problems,' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or produces output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with specific details to improve clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's conceptual nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'thinking through' results in, how the tool aids problem-solving, or what the agent should expect, leaving too much ambiguity for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'thought' described as 'Your thoughts.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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.

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'A tool for thinking through complex problems' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'thinking through' entails or what resource it operates on. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bash' or 'readFile' by being about cognitive processing rather than file operations, but remains vague about the actual function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for complex problems, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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. 8 tool updates
    • First observedbash
    • First observedcodeReview
    • First observededitFile
    • First observedgrep
    • First observedlistFiles
    • First observedreadFile
    • First observedsearchGlob
    • First observedthink
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

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 8 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, such as bash for shell execution, codeReview for analysis, and file operations like editFile, readFile, and listFiles. However, grep and searchGlob could be slightly confusing as both involve searching, though grep targets text content while searchGlob focuses on file patterns, which is clarified in descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed with camelCase (codeReview, editFile, readFile, listFiles, searchGlob) and lowercase (bash, grep, think), lacking a uniform pattern. While the camelCase tools follow a verbNoun style, the inconsistency in case usage reduces predictability across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a code and file management server, covering essential operations like execution, review, file handling, and search. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides strong coverage for code and file workflows, including creation, reading, editing, listing, searching, and review. A minor gap is the lack of a deleteFile tool, which agents might need to work around, but core operations are well-represented.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches