MCP Server Template
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP Server Template
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight TypeScript-based MCP server that demonstrates how to build custom MCP tools by implementing a simple addition calculator. Serves as a starting point for building MCP-compatible tools.2,031 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA minimal TypeScript MCP starter server that counts words and characters, ready to extend with custom tools.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA minimal TypeScript MCP server that provides echo and text_stats tools for text validation and word/character counting over stdio.2MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA production-ready TypeScript MCP server providing basic tools (add, echo, timestamp), resources (server info, greetings, data access), and prompt templates (analyze, code-review, summarize). Serves as a foundation for building custom MCP servers with extensible architecture.289 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA boilerplate project for quickly developing MCP servers using TypeScript, featuring example implementations of tools (calculator, greetings) and resources (server info) with Zod schema validation.ISC
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA TypeScript MCP server template with Zod validation, dual transport (stdio/HTTP), and modular architecture for building MCP-compatible tools, resources, and prompts.11-
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target completely disjoint domains: `add` performs numeric addition and `word_stats` performs text analysis. There is no plausible way for an agent to confuse one with the other.
`add` is a bare verb while `word_stats` is a noun phrase, so the two names follow different conventions. With only two tools there is no discernible pattern to learn from.
Two tools is thin even for a template server, and they are unrelated utilities rather than a coherent capability set. The count is not harmful, but it sits at the borderline of feeling under-scoped.
Each tool is self-contained and appears to fully cover its tiny operation, so there are no obvious internal gaps. However, there is no unifying domain, so coverage cannot be meaningfully assessed and the surface is minimal for any real workflow.