Skip to main content
Glama
chelsea-zhou

AIE7-MCP

by chelsea-zhou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

AI Makerspace: MCP Session Repo for Session 13

This project is a demonstration of the MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, which utilizes the Tavily API for web search capabilities. The server is designed to run in a standard input/output (stdio) transport mode.

Related MCP server: Tavily Web Search MCP Server

Project Overview

The MCP server is set up to handle web search queries using the Tavily API. It is built with the following key components:

  • TavilyClient: A client for interacting with the Tavily API to perform web searches.

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.13 or higher

  • A valid Tavily API key

⚠️NOTE FOR WINDOWS:⚠️

You'll need to install this on the Windows side of your OS.

This will require getting two CLI tool for Powershell, which you can do as follows:

  • winget install astral-sh.uv

  • winget install --id Git.Git -e --source winget

After you have those CLI tools, please open Cursor into Windows.

Then, you can clone the repository using the following command in your Cursor terminal:

git clone https://AI-Maker-Space/AIE7-MCP-Session.git

After that, you can follow from Step 2. below!

Installation

  1. Clone the repository:

    git clone <repository-url>
cd <repository-directory>

  2. Configure environment variables: Copy the .env.sample to .env and add your Tavily API key:

    TAVILY_API_KEY=your_api_key_here

  3. 🏗️ Add a new tool to your MCP Server 🏗️

Create a new tool in the server.py file, that's it!

Running the MCP Server

To start the MCP server, you will need to add the following to your MCP Profile in Cursor:

NOTE: To get to your MCP config. you can use the Command Pallete (CMD/CTRL+SHIFT+P) and select "View: Open MCP Settings" and replace the contents with the JSON blob below.

{
    "mcpServers":  {
        "mcp-server": {
            "command" : "uv",
            "args" : ["--directory", "/PATH/TO/REPOSITORY", "run", "server.py"]
        }
    }
}

The server will start and listen for commands via standard input/output.

Usage

The server provides a web_search tool that can be used to search the web for information about a given query. This is achieved by calling the web_search function with the desired query string.

Activities:

There are a few activities for this assignment!

🏗️ Activity #1:

Choose an API that you enjoy using - and build an MCP server for it!

🏗️ Activity #2:

Build a simple LangGraph application that interacts with your MCP Server.

You can find details here!

Available Tools

3 tools
check_holidayA

Get holiday information for a specific date and country. Date format: YYYY-MM-DD, Country code: US, CA, GB, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYes
country_codeNoUS

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and format, but does not mention what the tool returns, how it handles invalid inputs, or any limitations. This is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The additional format information is compact and earned, with no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient invocation details (date format and country code). It lacks broader usage context, but the output schema covers return value details, making the description adequately complete for this low-complexity tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does so by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and giving country code examples (US, CA, GB), which provides essential context beyond the bare schema fields. It is not exhaustive but meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get holiday information for a specific date and country.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the date/country scope differentiates it from the unrelated siblings web_search and roll_dice.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied from the purpose (use for holiday information), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The format hints (date format, country code) provide some usage direction, but not enough to warrant a higher score.

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

roll_diceC

Roll the dice with the given notation

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notationYes
num_rollsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 fails to mention the format of accepted notation, whether the roll is random, any constraints, error behavior, or the return value. This is a significant transparency gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. Every sentence is technically earned but the content is insufficient. It is concise at the expense of usefulness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain the expected notation syntax or the number of rolls, and while an output schema exists, the description does not help connect inputs to outputs. The description needs more detail to be functionally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely references 'notation' and completely ignores the 'num_rolls' parameter. The description provides essentially no semantic information beyond the parameter names.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('roll dice') with a vague reference to 'given notation'. It communicates the basic action but adds no detail about what notation is or how it differs from other tools. It's minimally clear but not strongly differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about suitable scenarios. The description simply states the action without implying any usage conditions or exclusions.

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. 3 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcheck_holiday
    • First observedroll_dice
    • First observedweb_search
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

A3.5/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a completely different use case—web search, dice rolling, and holiday lookup—so there is no overlap or confusion between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (web_search, roll_dice, check_holiday), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 3 tools, the set is lean but not unreasonably so; however, the tools are unrelated, so the overall scope feels somewhat scattered rather than cohesive, which is why it's not a perfect 5.

Completeness3/5

The server lacks a clear domain, so completeness is hard to evaluate; while each tool is self-contained, there is no broader workflow that reveals obvious gaps, but also no evidence of comprehensive coverage of a unified purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • metasearch-mcp

    YeonwooSung
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for using various search tools like Tavily API. Planning to support various search tools (i.e. wiki search, searxng, etc)
    3
    MIT

  • Tavily Web Search MCP Server

    julie-berlin
    F
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables web search capabilities through the Tavily API, allowing users to search the internet for information using natural language queries. Demonstrates MCP server implementation with external API integration.
    3
    -

  • AIE7-hw13-mcp

    kvaliotti
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server using Tavily API for web search, enabling web search queries via stdio transport.
    5
    -