Esta es una implementación de servidor MCP para Brev.
El servidor MCP utiliza el token de acceso a la API de Brev CLI y actualmente está configurado como org.
Siga la documentación de Brev para descargar la CLI e iniciar sesión si aún no lo ha hecho.
Si desea cambiar su organización Brev, ejecute brev set <org-name>
El token de acceso de la CLI caduca cada hora. Si se produce un error 403, simplemente ejecute brev ls para actualizar el token de acceso.
Related MCP server: GCP Infrastructure MCP Server
git clone git@github.com:brevdev/brev-mcp.git
Siga la guía de instalación de UV
En MacOS: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json En Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Agregue lo siguiente a su claude_desktop_config.json :
"mcpServers": {
"brev_mcp": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"<path-to-repo>",
"run",
"brev-mcp"
]
}
}Para preparar el paquete para su distribución:
Sincronizar dependencias y actualizar el archivo de bloqueo:
uv syncDistribuciones de paquetes de compilación:
uv buildEsto creará distribuciones de origen y de rueda en el directorio dist/ .
Publicar en PyPI:
uv publishNota: Deberás configurar las credenciales de PyPI a través de variables de entorno o indicadores de comando:
Token: --token o UV_PUBLISH_TOKEN
O nombre de usuario/contraseña: --username / UV_PUBLISH_USERNAME y --password / UV_PUBLISH_PASSWORD
Dado que los servidores MCP se ejecutan en stdio, la depuración puede ser complicada. Para una experiencia óptima, recomendamos usar el Inspector MCP .
Puede iniciar el Inspector MCP a través de npm con este comando:
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv --directory /Users/tmontfort/Brev/repos/brev_mcp run brev-mcpAl iniciarse, el Inspector mostrará una URL a la que podrá acceder en su navegador para comenzar a depurar.
Create a workspace from an instance type and cloud provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cloud_provider | Yes | The cloud provider for the workspace | |
| instance_type | No | The instance type of the workspace | |
| name | No | The name of the workspace |
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 this is a creation tool, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that creates resources.
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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 resource creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'workspace' represents in this context, what happens after creation, whether there are dependencies or constraints, or what the return value might be. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata creates significant contextual gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'instance type and cloud provider' as inputs, which aligns with two of the three parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('workspace') with specific inputs ('from an instance type and cloud provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_instance_types', which appears to be a read-only counterpart rather than a direct alternative for creation.
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 or any prerequisites for its use. While it mentions 'instance type and cloud provider' as inputs, it doesn't clarify if this is the only way to create a workspace or if there are other methods available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get available instances types for a cloud provider
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cloud_provider | Yes | The cloud provider to get instance types for |
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 mentions 'Get available instance types' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (one parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output details, leaving the agent with incomplete context about the tool's full behavior and results.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cloud_provider' well-documented in the schema, including an enum list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the provider choice, so it 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('available instance types for a cloud provider'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_workspace', which is unrelated, so it doesn't fully earn the highest score for sibling distinction.
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 or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context about timing, constraints, or comparisons to other tools, 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.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0create_workspaceget_instance_typesScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one creates a workspace and the other retrieves instance types. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible for an agent to confuse them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (create_workspace, get_instance_types). The verbs are clear and descriptive, and the style is uniform throughout.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for managing workspaces. It lacks essential operations like listing, updating, or deleting workspaces, which limits its utility for typical lifecycle management.
The toolset is severely incomplete for workspace management. It includes creation and instance type lookup but omits critical operations such as listing existing workspaces, updating configurations, or deleting workspaces, leaving significant gaps in coverage.
Run AI models, create deployments, and manage predictions via cloud API
Discover, run, inspect, build, test, and privately reuse AI workflows.
GPU cloud platform — create, manage, and monitor instances, snapshots, SSH keys, and billing.
Deploy apps on your cloud. Create environments, configure infrastructure, and monitor jobs.
