Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Superpowers MCP write a development plan for a new task management API"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
基于 superpowers 开发的 MCP (Model Context Protocol) 服务器，为 AI 助手提供强大的扩展能力。
🚀 将 superpowers 的完整功能暴露为 MCP 工具
🛠️ 无缝集成所有支持 MCP 协议的 AI 助手
🔌 完美适配 Trae、Claude Desktop、Codex、Cursor 等平台
📦 开箱即用，无需复杂配置
🔧 支持所有 superpowers 原生命令和技能
Related MCP server: Coding Tools MCP
npm install -g https://github.com/xinyuzjj/superpowers-mcp.gitgit clone https://github.com/xinyuzjj/superpowers-mcp.git
cd superpowers-mcp
npm install
npm run build
npm link在你的 MCP 客户端配置文件中添加以下内容：
{
"mcpServers": {
"superpowers": {
"command": "mcp-superpowers"
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"superpowers": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@xinyuzjj/superpowers-mcp"]
}
}
}配置完成后，重启你的 AI 助手即可开始使用 superpowers 功能。
run-superpower-command运行 superpowers 命令
参数说明：
command: 要执行的 superpowers 命令名称（必填）
args: 命令的参数列表（可选）
使用示例：
{
"name": "run-superpower-command",
"parameters": {
"command": "write-plan",
"args": ["开发一个待办事项应用"]
}
}list-superpower-skills列出所有可用的 superpowers 技能
使用示例：
{
"name": "list-superpower-skills",
"parameters": {}
}Superpowers 内置了丰富的开发技能：
🧠 头脑风暴技能
📋 计划编写技能
⚡ 计划执行技能
🔍 系统性调试技能
🧪 测试驱动开发技能
👥 子代理并行开发技能
📝 代码评审技能
🔄 Git 工作流技能
✅ 完成前验证技能
📖 技能编写技能
# 安装依赖
npm install
# 构建项目
npm run build
# 开发模式（自动监听文件变化）
npm run dev
# 运行测试
npm testsuperpowers-mcp/
├── src/
│ └── index.ts # MCP 服务器主入口
├── skills/ # 所有 superpowers 技能文件
├── commands/ # 内置命令定义
├── agents/ # 代理配置
├── dist/ # 编译输出目录
├── package.json
├── tsconfig.json
└── README.md欢迎提交 Issue 和 Pull Request！
Fork 本仓库
创建你的特性分支 (git checkout -b feature/AmazingFeature)
提交你的更改 (git commit -m 'Add some AmazingFeature')
推送到分支 (git push origin feature/AmazingFeature)
开启一个 Pull Request
本项目基于 MIT 许可证开源 - 查看 LICENSE 文件了解详情。
感谢 obra 开发的原始 superpowers 项目
感谢 MCP 协议提供的标准化扩展能力
List all available superpowers skills
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 lists skills but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
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 (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, response format) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially with no annotations to compensate.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
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 states the tool's purpose ('List all available superpowers skills') with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('superpowers skills'), but it's vague about scope—does 'available' mean globally or user-specific? It doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'run-superpower-command', which appears to execute rather than list skills.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the sibling tool 'run-superpower-command' or clarify if this is for discovery before execution. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a superpowers command
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The command to run | |
| args | No | Arguments for the command |
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. The description only states the action ('Run a superpowers command') without any information about side effects, permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon execution. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations or operations with potential consequences.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Run a superpowers command', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it is under-informative, it does not suffer from verbosity or poor structure, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity. It fails to explain what 'superpowers' entails, what commands are available, the outcome of running a command, or any behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('command' and 'args'). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'command' but offers no examples, constraints, or context for valid commands. Since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run a superpowers command' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'run-superpower-command'. It provides a generic verb+object but lacks specificity about what 'superpowers' refers to, what types of commands are available, or what resources are affected. While it distinguishes from the sibling 'list-superpower-skills' by implying execution rather than listing, the purpose remains vague and under-defined.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context for command execution, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'list-superpower-skills'. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it addresses, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
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.
v1.0.0list-superpower-skillsrun-superpower-commandScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists available superpower skills, and the other runs commands, with no overlap in functionality that could cause confusion.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (list-superpower-skills, run-superpower-command), though the slight variation in the noun part ('skills' vs 'command') is a minor deviation from perfect consistency.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Superpowers' domain, as it lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting superpowers, which limits its usefulness for typical agent workflows.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a superpowers domain; it only supports listing and running commands, missing basic CRUD operations (e.g., create, update, delete superpowers) and other expected functionalities like managing users or permissions.
Your org's AI agents, tasks, runs, search, and brain files as MCP tools and resources.
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
One MCP endpoint for Claude, GPT & Gemini: 100+ tools + no-code connectors + agent workers.
Manage Superlist tasks and lists in plain language from any MCP-compatible AI agent.
