スクリプト用のネイティブ Clojure インタープリターであるBabashkaと対話するためのモデル コンテキスト プロトコル サーバー。
MCPツールを通じてBabashkaコードを実行する
最近のコマンド結果をキャッシュする
MCP リソースを通じてコマンド履歴にアクセスする
設定可能なコマンドタイムアウト
Related MCP server: Claude Code Control MCP
Babashka はいくつかの方法でインストールできます。
brew install borkdude/brew/babashkabash < <(curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/babashka/babashka/master/install)# Using scoop
scoop install babashkaその他のインストール方法については、公式の Babashka インストール ガイドを参照してください。
インストール後、Babashka が動作することを確認します。
# Check version
bb --version
# Try a simple expression
bb -e '(+ 1 2 3)'
# Run a script from string
bb -e '(defn hello [x] (str "Hello, " x "!")) (hello "World")'
# Use -i flag to process lines of input
ls | bb -i '(take 2 *input*)'# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the MCP server
npm run buildサーバーは環境変数を通じて設定できます:
BABASHKA_PATH : Babashka 実行ファイルへのパス (デフォルト: "bb")
オプションのタイムアウト付きで Babashka コードを実行します。
{
name: "execute",
arguments: {
code: string; // Babashka code to execute
timeout?: number; // Timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000)
}
}例：
{
name: "execute",
arguments: {
code: "(+ 1 2 3)",
timeout: 5000
}
}サーバーは、以下を通じてアクセスできる最近のコマンド実行のキャッシュを保持します。
babashka://commands/{index} - インデックスで特定のコマンド結果にアクセスします
Babashkaは、 recur特殊形式による明示的な末尾呼び出し最適化をサポートしていますが、自動TCOは実装していません。例えば、
;; This will cause stack overflow
(defn countdown [n]
(if (zero? n)
:done
(countdown (dec n))))
;; This works with TCO using recur
(defn countdown [n]
(if (zero? n)
:done
(recur (dec n))))Babashka GitHub リポジトリ- メインの Babashka プロジェクト
ババシュカの本- 公式ドキュメント
Babashka の例- サンプルスクリプトのコレクション
pod-babashka-buddy - Babashka 用の暗号化 API
bb-clis - 便利な Babashka CLI スクリプトのコレクション
bb-scripts - Babashka 用のさまざまなユーティリティ スクリプト
setup-babashka - Babashka をインストールするための GitHub アクション
babashka-docker-action - GitHub アクションで Babashka スクリプトを実行する
このサーバーは最終的にセルフホスティングとなるように設計されており、Babashka 自体で書き換えられる予定です。現在の TypeScript 実装はリファレンスおよび出発点として機能します。
セルフホスト実装
BabashkaのMCPサーバーを書き換える
Babashka のネイティブ機能を活用してパフォーマンスを向上
Node.jsへの依存を削除する
MCPプロトコルとの完全な互換性を維持
現在のすべての機能をサポートします:
コマンド実行
リソース管理
コマンド履歴
タイムアウト処理
強化された機能
Babashkaポッドのサポートを追加
ファイル監視機能を実装する
REPL統合を追加する
複数の Babashka インスタンスのサポート
パフォーマンスの最適化
キャッシュ戦略を実装する
リソース使用の最適化
起動時間を短縮
テストとドキュメント
包括的なテストスイート
APIドキュメント
使用例
パフォーマンスベンチマーク
Execute Babashka (bb) code
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Babashka code to execute | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000) |
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 action ('execute') but doesn't describe key behaviors like execution environment, security implications, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that runs arbitrary code.
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, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of executing code and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what the execution returns, error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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 fully documents both parameters (code and timeout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid Babashka code or timeout implications. 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 verb ('execute') and resource ('Babashka (bb) code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't need sibling differentiation since there are no sibling tools, but it could be slightly more specific about what 'execute' entails (e.g., running code in a Babashka environment).
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, such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, it doesn't need to distinguish from others, but it lacks any context about appropriate scenarios for executing Babashka code.
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.
v1.0.0executeScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'execute' has a clear and distinct purpose for running Babashka code.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The name 'execute' is straightforward and appropriate for its function.
A single tool is too few for most practical server purposes, as it severely limits functionality and flexibility. While it might suffice for a minimal interface, it feels thin and under-scoped for general use.
The tool provides basic execution capability, but there are notable gaps such as no tools for managing scripts, handling dependencies, or providing utilities like linting or debugging. This limits the server's usefulness for broader Babashka workflows.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Operate Linux, macOS and Windows from your LLM. Every action runs through an auditable allowlist.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
