Skip to main content
Glama
ciel240

Multi-Purpose MCP Server

by ciel240
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Multi-Purpose MCP Server

다양한 기능을 제공하는 Model Context Protocol (MCP) 서버입니다. 시간 조회, 계산기, 인사말, 코드 리뷰, 이미지 생성 등의 기능을 포함하고 있습니다.

🚀 주요 기능

  • 현재 시간 조회: 지정된 시간대의 현재 시간을 조회합니다

  • 다양한 시간대 지원: Asia/Seoul, America/New_York, Europe/London 등 모든 IANA 시간대 지원

  • 계산기: 두 숫자에 대한 사칙연산을 수행합니다

  • 다국어 인사말: 다양한 언어로 인사말을 제공합니다

  • 코드 리뷰: 코드에 대한 상세한 리뷰 프롬프트를 생성합니다

  • 이미지 생성: 텍스트 프롬프트를 사용하여 AI 이미지를 생성합니다

Related MCP server: Time MCP Server

📁 프로젝트 구조

time-mcp-server/
├── src/
│   └── index.ts          # MCP 서버 메인 진입점
├── build/                # 컴파일된 JavaScript 파일 (빌드 후 생성)
├── package.json          # 프로젝트 의존성 및 스크립트
├── tsconfig.json         # TypeScript 설정
└── README.md            # 프로젝트 문서

🚀 시작하기

1. 의존성 설치

npm install

2. 환경 변수 설정

이미지 생성 기능을 사용하려면 Hugging Face API 토큰이 필요합니다.

Hugging Face API 토큰 발급

  1. Hugging Face에 계정을 생성합니다

  2. Settings > Access Tokens에서 새 토큰을 생성합니다

  3. 토큰을 복사합니다

환경 변수 설정

Windows (PowerShell):

$env:HF_TOKEN="your_hugging_face_token_here"

Windows (Command Prompt):

set HF_TOKEN=your_hugging_face_token_here

Linux/macOS:

export HF_TOKEN="your_hugging_face_token_here"

또는 .env 파일을 생성하여 설정할 수 있습니다:

HF_TOKEN=your_hugging_face_token_here

3. 빌드

npm run build

4. 실행

node build/index.js

빌드가 성공하면 build/ 디렉토리에 컴파일된 JavaScript 파일이 생성되고, 서버가 MCP 클라이언트의 연결을 대기합니다.

🛠️ 사용 방법

1. 시간 조회 도구

현재 시간을 조회하는 도구입니다:

  • 도구 이름: current_time

  • 매개변수:

    • timezone (선택사항): 시간대 (예: Asia/Seoul, America/New_York, Europe/London)

    • 시간대를 지정하지 않으면 한국 시간대(Asia/Seoul)를 사용합니다

2. 계산기 도구

두 숫자에 대한 사칙연산을 수행하는 도구입니다:

  • 도구 이름: calculator

  • 매개변수:

    • num1: 첫 번째 숫자

    • num2: 두 번째 숫자

    • operation: 연산자 (add, subtract, multiply, divide)

3. 인사말 도구

다양한 언어로 인사말을 제공하는 도구입니다:

  • 도구 이름: greeting

  • 매개변수:

    • name: 사용자의 이름

    • language: 인사말을 할 언어 (korean, english, japanese, chinese, spanish, french, german, italian, portuguese, russian)

4. 코드 리뷰 도구

코드에 대한 상세한 리뷰 프롬프트를 생성하는 도구입니다:

  • 도구 이름: code_review

  • 매개변수:

    • code: 리뷰할 코드

    • language (선택사항): 코드 언어 (javascript, typescript, python, java, cpp, go, rust)

    • reviewType (선택사항): 리뷰 유형 (comprehensive, security, performance, readability, best_practices)

5. 이미지 생성 도구

텍스트 프롬프트를 사용하여 AI 이미지를 생성하는 도구입니다:

  • 도구 이름: generate_image

  • 매개변수:

    • prompt: 이미지 생성을 위한 프롬프트

  • 반환 형식: base64-encoded PNG 이미지

사용 예시

  1. 한국 시간 조회 (기본값):

    현재 시간을 알려줘

  2. 특정 시간대 시간 조회:

    뉴욕 시간을 알려줘

    또는

    Europe/London 시간대의 현재 시간을 알려줘

  3. 계산기 사용:

    5 더하기 3은 얼마야?
10 나누기 2는?

  4. 다국어 인사말:

    안녕하세요 라고 인사해줘
Hello라고 영어로 인사해줘

  5. 코드 리뷰:

    다음 코드를 리뷰해줘: function add(a, b) { return a + b; }

  6. 이미지 생성:

    고양이가 우주를 여행하는 이미지를 생성해줘

지원하는 시간대 예시

  • Asia/Seoul - 한국 시간대 (기본값)

  • America/New_York - 뉴욕 시간대

  • America/Los_Angeles - 로스앤젤레스 시간대

  • Europe/London - 런던 시간대

  • Europe/Paris - 파리 시간대

  • Asia/Tokyo - 도쿄 시간대

  • Asia/Shanghai - 상하이 시간대

  • Australia/Sydney - 시드니 시간대

💡 팁: 모든 IANA 시간대를 지원합니다. IANA Time Zone Database에서 사용 가능한 시간대 목록을 확인할 수 있습니다.

🛠️ 개발 가이드

MCP 도구(Tool) 추가하기

MCP 서버에 새로운 도구를 추가하려면 server.tool() 메서드에 Zod 스키마를 직접 정의하여 등록합니다:

import { z } from 'zod'

// 계산기 도구 추가
server.tool(
    'calculator',
    {
        operation: z
            .enum(['add', 'subtract', 'multiply', 'divide'])
            .describe('수행할 연산 (add, subtract, multiply, divide)'),
        a: z.number().describe('첫 번째 숫자'),
        b: z.number().describe('두 번째 숫자')
    },
    async ({ operation, a, b }) => {
        // 연산 수행
        let result: number
        switch (operation) {
            case 'add':
                result = a + b
                break
            case 'subtract':
                result = a - b
                break
            case 'multiply':
                result = a * b
                break
            case 'divide':
                if (b === 0) throw new Error('0으로 나눌 수 없습니다')
                result = a / b
                break
            default:
                throw new Error('지원하지 않는 연산입니다')
        }

        const operationSymbols = {
            add: '+',
            subtract: '-',
            multiply: '×',
            divide: '÷'
        } as const

        const operationSymbol =
            operationSymbols[operation as keyof typeof operationSymbols]

        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: 'text',
                    text: `${a} ${operationSymbol} ${b} = ${result}`
                }
            ]
        }
    }
)

더 복잡한 도구 예시

// 날씨 정보 조회 도구
server.tool(
    'get_weather',
    {
        city: z.string().describe('날씨를 조회할 도시명'),
        unit: z
            .enum(['celsius', 'fahrenheit'])
            .optional()
            .default('celsius')
            .describe('온도 단위 (기본값: celsius)')
    },
    async ({ city, unit }) => {
        try {
            // 실제 날씨 API 호출 로직 (예시)
            const weatherData = await fetchWeatherData(city, unit)

            return {
                content: [
                    {
                        type: 'text',
                        text: `${city}의 현재 날씨:
온도: ${weatherData.temperature}°${unit === 'celsius' ? 'C' : 'F'}
날씨: ${weatherData.condition}
습도: ${weatherData.humidity}%
풍속: ${weatherData.windSpeed}km/h`
                    }
                ]
            }
        } catch (error) {
            throw new Error(
                `날씨 정보를 가져올 수 없습니다: ${(error as Error).message}`
            )
        }
    }
)

// 도우미 함수
async function fetchWeatherData(city: string, unit: string) {
    // 실제 날씨 API 호출 구현
    // 여기서는 예시 데이터 반환
    return {
        temperature: unit === 'celsius' ? 22 : 72,
        condition: '맑음',
        humidity: 65,
        windSpeed: 12
    }
}

리소스 추가하기

MCP 서버에 리소스를 추가하여 외부 데이터나 파일에 대한 접근을 제공할 수 있습니다:

// 리소스 등록
server.resource(
    'example-file',
    'file://example.txt',
    {
        name: '예시 텍스트 파일',
        description: '예시 텍스트 파일 설명',
        mimeType: 'text/plain'
    },
    async () => {
        return {
            contents: [
                {
                    uri: 'file://example.txt',
                    mimeType: 'text/plain',
                    text: '예시 파일 내용입니다.'
                }
            ]
        }
    }
)

// 동적 리소스 예시
server.resource(
    'app-settings',
    'config://settings',
    {
        name: '애플리케이션 설정',
        description: '애플리케이션의 현재 설정 정보',
        mimeType: 'application/json'
    },
    async () => {
        const settings = {
            theme: 'dark',
            language: 'ko-KR',
            notifications: true,
            lastUpdated: new Date().toISOString()
        }

        return {
            contents: [
                {
                    uri: 'config://settings',
                    mimeType: 'application/json',
                    text: JSON.stringify(settings, null, 2)
                }
            ]
        }
    }
)

📦 주요 의존성

  • @modelcontextprotocol/sdk: MCP 프로토콜 구현을 위한 공식 SDK

  • @huggingface/inference: Hugging Face Inference API 클라이언트 (이미지 생성용)

  • zod: TypeScript 우선 스키마 검증 라이브러리

  • typescript: TypeScript 컴파일러

🔧 스크립트

  • npm run build: TypeScript를 JavaScript로 컴파일하고 실행 권한 설정

📋 사용 예시

시간 조회 도구 사용

// 한국 시간 조회 (기본값)
const koreanTime = await getCurrentTime() // "2024-01-15 14:30:25 (Asia/Seoul)"

// 뉴욕 시간 조회
const newYorkTime = await getCurrentTime('America/New_York') // "2024-01-15 00:30:25 (America/New_York)"

// 런던 시간 조회
const londonTime = await getCurrentTime('Europe/London') // "2024-01-15 05:30:25 (Europe/London)"

완전한 서버 예시

import { Server } from '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/index.js'
import { StdioServerTransport } from '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio.js'
import { CallToolRequestSchema, ListToolsRequestSchema } from '@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/types.js'
import { z } from 'zod'

// 시간 도구 스키마
const TimeToolSchema = z.object({
    timezone: z.string().optional().describe('시간대 (예: Asia/Seoul, America/New_York)')
})

// 현재 시간 조회 함수
const getCurrentTime = (timezone: string = 'Asia/Seoul'): string => {
    const now = new Date()
    const options: Intl.DateTimeFormatOptions = {
        timeZone: timezone,
        year: 'numeric',
        month: '2-digit',
        day: '2-digit',
        hour: '2-digit',
        minute: '2-digit',
        second: '2-digit',
        hour12: false
    }
    
    const formatter = new Intl.DateTimeFormat('ko-KR', options)
    const timeString = formatter.format(now)
    
    return `${timeString} (${timezone})`
}

// 서버 생성
const server = new Server(
    {
        name: 'time-mcp-server',
        version: '1.0.0',
    },
    {
        capabilities: {
            tools: {},
        },
    }
)

// 도구 등록
server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
    return {
        tools: [
            {
                name: 'current_time',
                description: '현재 시간을 지정된 시간대에서 조회하는 도구',
                inputSchema: {
                    type: 'object',
                    properties: {
                        timezone: {
                            type: 'string',
                            description: '시간대 (예: Asia/Seoul, America/New_York)'
                        }
                    },
                    required: []
                }
            }
        ]
    }
})

// 도구 호출 처리
server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) => {
    if (request.params.name === 'current_time') {
        const { timezone } = TimeToolSchema.parse(request.params.arguments)
        const currentTime = getCurrentTime(timezone)
        
        return {
            content: [
                {
                    type: 'text',
                    text: `현재 시간: ${currentTime}`
                }
            ]
        }
    }
    
    throw new Error(`알 수 없는 도구: ${request.params.name}`)
})

// 서버 시작
async function main() {
    const transport = new StdioServerTransport()
    await server.connect(transport)
    console.error('Time MCP Server started')
}

main().catch(console.error)

🔧 Cursor MCP 연결

개발한 MCP 서버를 Cursor에서 테스트할 수 있습니다:

설정 파일 수정

./.cursor/mcp.json 파일을 편집합니다:

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "typescript-mcp-server": {
            "command": "node",
            "args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/YOUR/PROJECT/build/index.js"]
        }
    }
}

주의: 절대 경로를 사용해야 합니다. pwd 명령어로 현재 경로를 확인하세요.

테스트 명령어

Cursor MCP에서 다음과 같이 테스트해볼 수 있습니다:

  • "현재 시간을 알려줘" (한국 시간 조회)

  • "뉴욕 시간을 알려줘" (뉴욕 시간 조회)

  • "Europe/London 시간대의 현재 시간을 알려줘" (런던 시간 조회)

  • "5 더하기 3은 얼마야?" (계산기 도구 테스트)

  • "안녕하세요 라고 인사해줘" (인사 도구 테스트)

  • "다음 코드를 리뷰해줘: function add(a, b) { return a + b; }" (코드 리뷰 테스트)

  • "고양이가 우주를 여행하는 이미지를 생성해줘" (이미지 생성 테스트)

🔗 참고 자료

📄 라이선스

MIT

Available Tools

5 tools
calculatorC

두 숫자에 대한 사칙연산을 수행하는 계산기 도구

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
num1Yes첫 번째 숫자
num2Yes두 번째 숫자
operationYes연산자

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs arithmetic operations but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., division by zero), output format, or any behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (a calculator with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (num1, num2, operation with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: performing four basic arithmetic operations on two numbers. It uses specific verbs ('사칙연산을 수행하는') and identifies the resource ('두 숫자'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'code_review' or 'generate_image', which are unrelated, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation for a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. While sibling tools are unrelated, the description lacks any usage instructions, such as when arithmetic calculations are needed over other tools.

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

code_reviewC

사용자가 제공한 코드에 대한 상세한 코드 리뷰 프롬프트를 생성하는 도구

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes리뷰할 코드
languageNo코드 언어 (예: javascript, typescript, python, java, cpp, go, rust). 입력하지 않으면 자동으로 감지합니다.
reviewTypeNo리뷰 유형 (comprehensive: 종합적, security: 보안, performance: 성능, readability: 가독성, best_practices: 모범사례)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it 'creates a detailed code review prompt', but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it generates text, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool outputs (e.g., a text prompt), any constraints, or how it interacts with the code review process. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'reviewType' or provide examples beyond the enum). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '생성하는 도구' (creates) '상세한 코드 리뷰 프롬프트' (detailed code review prompt) for '사용자가 제공한 코드' (user-provided code). It specifies the verb (creates), resource (code review prompt), and target (user-provided code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' or 'calculator', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for generating prompts versus executing reviews, or how it differs from general-purpose tools like 'greeting'. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

current_timeA

현재 시간을 지정된 시간대에서 조회하는 도구. 시간대를 입력하지 않으면 한국 시간대(Asia/Seoul)를 사용합니다.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timezoneNo시간대 (예: Asia/Seoul, America/New_York, Europe/London). 입력하지 않으면 한국 시간대를 사용합니다.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the default behavior (uses Asia/Seoul if no timezone is given) and implies it's a read-only query operation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling for invalid timezones, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned time. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its full behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds the default behavior in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and default behavior, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't cover error cases, return format, or other operational details. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'timezone' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating the default behavior (uses Asia/Seoul if not input). Since the schema already covers this, the description doesn't provide significant additional semantic context, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '현재 시간을 지정된 시간대에서 조회하는 도구' (a tool to query the current time in a specified timezone). It specifies the verb '조회' (query) and resource '현재 시간' (current time). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'greeting', which might also involve time-related functions, though the distinction is reasonably implied.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for usage: '시간대를 입력하지 않으면 한국 시간대(Asia/Seoul)를 사용합니다' (if no timezone is input, uses Korean timezone Asia/Seoul). This gives guidance on when to use the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'greeting' or other time-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

generate_imageC

텍스트 프롬프트를 사용하여 이미지를 생성하는 도구

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYes이미지 생성을 위한 프롬프트

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 function without details on traits like rate limits, quality of output, processing time, or error conditions. For a generative tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (generative AI with potential for varied outputs) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'prompt' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as prompt formatting tips or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '텍스트 프롬프트를 사용하여 이미지를 생성하는 도구' translates to 'A tool that generates images using text prompts.' This specifies the verb (generate images) and resource (images) with the mechanism (text prompts). However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since none are image-related tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with other tools. Since siblings include unrelated tools like calculator and code_review, there's no implied usage for choosing this one.

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

greetingB

사용자의 이름과 언어를 입력받아 해당 언어로 인사하는 도구

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes사용자의 이름
languageYes인사말을 할 언어 (korean, english, japanese, chinese, spanish, french, german, italian, portuguese, russian)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (greets with name and language) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what the output format looks like, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that clearly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (simple greeting function), 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, the description doesn't provide enough context about what the tool returns or its behavioral characteristics. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'language') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (it just repeats that it takes name and language). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '사용자의 이름과 언어를 입력받아 해당 언어로 인사하는 도구' (A tool that receives a user's name and language and greets in that language). It specifies the verb ('인사하는' - greets) and resources (name, language), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculator' or 'current_time' which serve completely different purposes, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there's no explicit when/when-not usage advice, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's name and description alone.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: calculator for arithmetic, code_review for code analysis, current_time for time retrieval, generate_image for image generation, and greeting for personalized salutations. The descriptions clearly differentiate their domains, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive noun-based naming (e.g., calculator, code_review, current_time). There are no deviations in style or verb usage, making the set predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count3/5

With 5 tools, the count is reasonable but feels thin for a 'Multi-Purpose' server, as it covers only a few unrelated domains without depth in any one area. It's borderline for the stated scope, lacking the breadth implied by the server name.

Completeness2/5

The server claims to be multi-purpose but has significant gaps: tools are isolated with no clear domain coverage (e.g., no CRUD operations, limited utility functions), and the set doesn't support cohesive workflows. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to accomplish broader tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Time MCP Server

    ampcome-mcps
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Gives large language models time awareness capabilities through various time-related functions including current time retrieval, timezone conversion, and relative time calculations.
    6
    1,823
    MIT

  • Time MCP Server

    dumyCq
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides time and timezone functionality for LLMs, enabling them to get current time information across different timezones and convert times between zones.
    2
    MIT

  • Time MCP Server

    tinytelly
    A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides current time and date information with timezone support and multiple formatting options. Enables AI assistants to answer time-related queries in different timezones with detailed temporal information.
    2
    15
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ciel240/class_study'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server