Claude Desktop과 같은 LLM 도구에 Salesforce CLI 기능을 제공하기 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다.
이 MCP 서버는 Salesforce CLI( sf ) 명령줄 도구를 래핑하고 해당 명령을 MCP 도구 및 리소스로 노출하여 LLM 기반 에이전트가 다음을 수행할 수 있도록 합니다.
Salesforce CLI 항목 및 명령에 대한 도움말 정보 보기
적절한 매개변수를 사용하여 Salesforce CLI 명령을 실행합니다.
AI 워크플로에서 Salesforce CLI 기능 활용
Related MCP server: Salesforce CLI MCP Server
Node.js 18+ 및 npm
Salesforce CLI( sf ) 설치 및 구성
CLI에서 구성된 Salesforce 조직 자격 증명
지엑스피1
# Basic usage
npm start
# With project roots
npm start /path/to/project1 /path/to/project2
# or using the convenience script
npm run with-roots /path/to/project1 /path/to/project2
# As an npx package with roots
npx -y codefriar/sf-mcp /path/to/project1 /path/to/project2MCP 서버는 MCP Inspector 나 Claude Desktop과 같은 MCP 클라이언트와 함께 사용할 수 있는 stdio 전송을 사용합니다.
Claude Desktop의 .claude.json 구성에서 이 MCP를 구성하려면:
{
"tools": {
"salesforce": {
"command": "/path/to/node",
"args": [
"/path/to/sf-mcp/build/index.js",
"/path/to/project1",
"/path/to/project2"
]
}
}
}npm 패키지를 직접 사용하는 경우:
{
"tools": {
"salesforce": {
"command": "/path/to/npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"codefriar/sf-mcp",
"/path/to/project1",
"/path/to/project2"
]
}
}
}# Watch mode (recompiles on file changes)
npm run dev
# In another terminal
npm start [optional project roots...]이 MCP 서버는 Salesforce CLI 명령을 MCP 도구로 제공합니다. Salesforce CLI에서 사용 가능한 모든 명령을 자동으로 검색하고 등록하며, 가장 자주 사용되는 명령을 구체적으로 구현합니다.
sf_version - Salesforce CLI 버전 정보 가져오기
sf_help - Salesforce CLI 명령에 대한 도움말 정보 가져오기
sf_cache_clear - 명령 검색 캐시를 지웁니다.
sf_cache_refresh - 명령 검색 캐시 새로 고침
Salesforce 프로젝트 컨텍스트(예: 배포)가 필요한 명령의 경우 프로젝트 디렉터리를 지정해야 합니다. MCP는 파일 시스템 MCP와 유사하게 여러 프로젝트 디렉터리(루트)를 지원합니다.
방법 1: 명령줄 인수를 통해
# Start the MCP with project roots
npm start /path/to/project1 /path/to/project2
# or
npx -y codefriar/sf-mcp /path/to/project1 /path/to/project2이런 방식으로 구성하면 루트는 자동으로 root1 , root2 등으로 지정되고 첫 번째 루트가 기본값으로 설정됩니다.
방법 2: MCP 도구 사용
sf_set_project_directory - 명령에 사용할 Salesforce 프로젝트 디렉토리를 설정합니다.
매개변수:
directory - sfdx-project.json 파일이 포함된 디렉토리 경로
name - (선택 사항) 이 프로젝트 루트의 이름
description - (선택 사항) 이 프로젝트 루트에 대한 설명
isDefault - (선택 사항) 이 루트를 명령 실행의 기본값으로 설정합니다.
sf_list_roots - 구성된 모든 프로젝트 루트 나열
sf_detect_project_directory - 사용자 메시지에서 프로젝트 디렉토리를 감지하려고 시도합니다.
사용 예:
# Set project directory with a name
sf_set_project_directory --directory=/path/to/your/sfdx/project --name=project1 --isDefault=true
# List all configured roots
sf_list_roots
# Or include in your message:
"Please deploy the apex code from the project in /path/to/your/sfdx/project to my scratch org"방법 3: Claude 데스크톱 구성 아래 설명한 대로 .claude.json 에서 프로젝트 루트를 구성합니다.
특정 프로젝트 루트에서 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
# Using resource URI
sf://roots/project1/commands/project deploy start --sourcedir=force-app
# Using rootName parameter
sf_project_deploy_start --sourcedir=force-app --rootName=project1배포, 소스 검색 및 기타 프로젝트별 작업과 같은 명령을 실행하려면 프로젝트 디렉터리를 지정해야 합니다. 여러 루트가 구성된 경우, 별도로 지정하지 않는 한 기본 루트가 사용됩니다.
다음 명령은 구체적으로 구현되어 작동이 보장됩니다.
sf_org_list - Salesforce 조직 목록
매개변수: json , verbose
sf_auth_list_orgs - 인증된 Salesforce 조직 목록
매개변수: json , verbose
sf_org_display - 조직에 대한 세부 정보 표시
매개변수: targetusername , json
sf_org_open - 브라우저에서 org 열기
매개변수: targetusername , path , urlonly
sf_apex_run - 익명의 Apex 코드 실행
매개변수: targetusername , file , apexcode , json
sf_apex_test_run - Apex 테스트 실행
매개변수: targetusername , testnames , suitenames , classnames , json
sf_data_query - SOQL 쿼리 실행
매개변수: targetusername , query , json
sf_schema_list_objects - org의 sObject 목록
매개변수: targetusername , json
sf_schema_describe - Salesforce 객체 설명
매개변수: targetusername , sobject , json
sf_project_deploy_start - 소스를 조직에 배포합니다.
매개변수: targetusername , sourcedir , json , wait
서버는 사용 가능한 모든 Salesforce CLI 명령을 검색하고 sf_<topic>_<command> 형식의 도구로 등록합니다.
예를 들어:
sf_apex_run - 익명의 Apex 코드 실행
sf_data_query - SOQL 쿼리 실행
중첩된 주제 명령의 경우 도구 이름에 밑줄이 포함된 전체 경로가 포함됩니다.
sf_apex_log_get - Apex 로그 가져오기
sf_org_login_web - 웹 흐름을 사용하여 조직에 로그인
서버는 가능한 경우 일반적인 중첩 명령에 대한 단순화된 별칭도 생성합니다.
sf_apex_log_get 의 별칭으로 sf_get
sf_org_login_web 의 별칭으로 sf_web
사용 가능한 명령은 설치된 Salesforce CLI 플러그인에 따라 달라집니다.
참고: 시작 성능 향상을 위해 명령 검색이 캐시됩니다. 새 SF CLI 플러그인을 설치하는 경우
sf_cache_refresh도구를 사용하여 캐시를 업데이트한 후 서버를 다시 시작하세요.
다음 리소스는 Salesforce CLI에 대한 문서를 제공합니다.
sf://help - 주요 CLI 문서
sf://topics/{topic}/help - 주제 도움말 문서
sf://commands/{command}/help - 명령 도움말 문서
sf://topics/{topic}/commands/{command}/help - 주제-명령 도움말 문서
sf://version - 버전 정보
sf://roots - 구성된 모든 프로젝트 루트를 나열합니다.
sf://roots/{root}/commands/{command} - 특정 프로젝트 루트에서 명령 실행
시작 시 서버는 캐시된 명령 목록( ~/.sf-mcp/command-cache.json 에 저장됨)을 확인합니다.
유효한 캐시가 있으면 명령을 등록하는 데 사용됩니다. 그렇지 않으면 명령이 동적으로 검색됩니다.
검색 중에 서버는 sf commands --json 쿼리하여 사용 가능한 명령의 전체 목록을 가져옵니다.
명령 메타데이터(매개변수 및 설명 포함)는 JSON 출력에서 직접 추출됩니다.
모든 명령은 적절한 매개변수 스키마를 사용하여 MCP 도구로 등록됩니다.
도움말 문서에 대한 리소스가 등록되었습니다.
도구가 호출되면 해당 Salesforce CLI 명령이 실행됩니다.
Salesforce 프로젝트 컨텍스트가 필요한 명령의 경우:
서버는 sf_set_project_directory 통해 프로젝트 루트가 구성되었는지 확인합니다.
여러 루트가 구성된 경우 특정 루트가 지정되지 않는 한 기본 루트를 사용합니다.
루트가 설정되지 않은 경우 서버는 사용자에게 프로젝트 디렉토리를 지정하라는 메시지를 표시합니다.
명령은 적절한 컨텍스트를 보장하는 적절한 프로젝트 디렉토리 내에서 실행됩니다.
사용자는 필요에 따라 여러 프로젝트 루트를 추가하거나 전환할 수 있습니다.
프로젝트별 명령(배포, 검색 등)은 해당 프로젝트 디렉터리에서 자동으로 실행됩니다. 프로젝트 컨텍스트가 필요하지 않은 명령의 경우 작업 디렉터리는 중요하지 않습니다.
다음을 통해 특정 프로젝트 루트에서 명령을 실행할 수 있습니다.
리소스 URI 사용: sf://roots/{rootName}/commands/{command}
명령 도구에 rootName 매개변수 제공(내부 구현 세부 사항)
sf_set_project_directory --isDefault=true 사용하여 특정 루트를 기본값으로 설정
시작 성능을 개선하기 위해 MCP 서버는 검색된 명령을 캐시합니다.
캐시는 ~/.sf-mcp/command-cache.json 에 저장됩니다.
여기에는 모든 주제, 명령, 매개변수 및 설명이 포함됩니다.
캐시에는 유효성 검사 타임스탬프와 SF CLI 버전 확인이 있습니다.
기본적으로 캐시는 7일 후에 만료됩니다.
새 Salesforce CLI 플러그인을 설치할 때 sf_cache_refresh 사용하여 캐시를 업데이트합니다.
서버를 처음 실행하면 전체 명령 검색이 수행되므로 시간이 다소 걸릴 수 있습니다. 명령 누락이나 캐시 문제가 발생하는 경우:
MCP 서버를 중지합니다(실행 중인 경우)
캐시 파일을 수동으로 삭제합니다: rm ~/.sf-mcp/command-cache.json
서버를 다시 시작하세요: npm start
이렇게 하면 공식 CLI 메타데이터를 사용하여 모든 명령을 완전히 다시 검색하게 됩니다.
특정 명령이 여전히 누락되었거나 새로운 SF CLI 플러그인을 설치한 경우:
Claude Desktop의 sf_cache_refresh 도구를 사용하세요
MCP 서버를 중지하고 다시 시작합니다.
Salesforce CLI는 여러 단계로 구성된 계층적 명령 구조를 가지고 있습니다. 이 MCP 서버는 다음과 같은 방법으로 중첩된 명령을 처리합니다.
콜론으로 구분된 경로를 밑줄 형식으로 변환( apex:log:get → sf_apex_log_get )
가능한 경우 일반적인 심층 명령에 대한 별칭 제공( sf_apex_log_get 의 경우 sf_get )
도구 이름에서 전체 명령 계층 구조 유지
sf commands --json 의 공식 명령 구조 사용
가능한 경우 중첩된 주제 명령은 전체 계층 구조 이름으로 한 번, 단순화된 별칭으로 한 번, 두 번 등록하여 검색 및 사용이 더 쉬워지도록 합니다.
아이에스씨
Clear the cached SF command metadata to force a refresh
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation action ('Clear') that likely affects system state, but does not detail permissions, side effects, or error handling. It adds value by specifying the purpose (force refresh) but lacks depth on behavioral traits like reversibility or impact.
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 action and outcome with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to understand 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 complexity (simple mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like effects or usage context in depth. For a mutation tool, more disclosure would be beneficial, but it meets basic requirements.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description focuses on tool purpose without unnecessary parameter repetition.
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 ('Clear') and the target ('cached SF command metadata'), with the specific outcome of forcing a refresh. It distinguishes from siblings like sf_cache_refresh by emphasizing clearing rather than refreshing, though the distinction could be more explicit. No tautology or vagueness is present.
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 implies usage when a refresh of metadata is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_cache_refresh or other siblings. It provides some context (force a refresh) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Refresh the SF command cache by re-scanning all available commands
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 the tool refreshes the cache by re-scanning commands, implying a read/write operation that updates cache state, but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, performance impact, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies cache data, this is insufficient behavioral context.
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 action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Refresh the SF command cache') and adds clarifying detail ('by re-scanning all available commands'). Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. While it states what the tool does, it lacks context about why or when to use it, behavioral traits like side effects or performance, and what the output might be. For a cache operation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and impact.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional value is required beyond stating the tool's purpose.
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 ('Refresh') and resource ('SF command cache'), and specifies the action ('by re-scanning all available commands'). It distinguishes from sibling 'sf_cache_clear' by indicating a refresh rather than a clear operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like project directory tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 like 'sf_cache_clear' or other cache-related operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where this refresh is necessary versus other actions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get instructions for setting up Salesforce project directories for command execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 'Get instructions,' implying a read-only operation that returns guidance, but it doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what format the instructions are in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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: 'Get instructions for setting up Salesforce project directories for command execution.' It is front-loaded with the main purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the tool's intent without waste.
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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on the instruction format, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool that likely provides setup guidance, more context on the output or usage scenarios would improve completeness.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't introduce confusion about parameters.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get instructions for setting up Salesforce project directories for command execution.' It specifies the action ('Get instructions') and resource ('Salesforce project directories'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like sf_set_project_directory. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or relationships with sibling tools such as sf_set_project_directory (which might actually set the directory) or sf_list_roots (which might list available directories). Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all configured Salesforce project directories and their metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 what the tool does but doesn't cover important aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose information but lacks important context about behavior, output format, and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be expected to help the agent understand what to expect from the operation.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.
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 ('List') and the resource ('all configured Salesforce project directories and their metadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sf_detect_project_directory or sf_set_project_directory, which prevents a perfect score.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or comparison to siblings like sf_cache_clear or sf_detect_project_directory, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a Salesforce project directory for command execution context
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | Yes | The absolute path to a directory containing an sfdx-project.json file | |
| name | No | Optional name for this project root | |
| description | No | Optional description for this project root | |
| isDefault | No | Set this root as the default for command execution |
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 setting a directory for 'command execution context,' which implies configuration/mutation, but doesn't specify whether this persists across sessions, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent 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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for a mutation tool in a set of related Salesforce commands.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as usage examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.
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 ('Set') and the resource ('Salesforce project directory for command execution context'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sf_detect_project_directory or sf_list_roots, which prevents a perfect score.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an sfdx-project.json file), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like sf_detect_project_directory. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
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.
v1.0.0sf_cache_clear1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsesf_cache_refresh1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsesf_detect_project_directory1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsesf_list_roots1 field changedInput schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsesf_cache_clearsf_cache_refreshsf_detect_project_directorysf_list_rootssf_set_project_directoryScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: cache_clear and cache_refresh handle metadata caching, detect_project_directory provides setup instructions, list_roots enumerates existing directories, and set_project_directory establishes execution context. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent 'sf_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case throughout (e.g., sf_cache_clear, sf_detect_project_directory). This predictable naming scheme makes the tool set easy to navigate and understand at a glance.
Five tools is reasonable for a Salesforce CLI server focused on project directory management and cache operations. It's slightly lean but covers core setup and maintenance tasks without feeling bloated or incomplete for its apparent scope.
The tool set covers project directory setup, listing, and context setting, plus cache management, but lacks direct Salesforce CLI command execution tools (e.g., running queries or deploying metadata). This creates a notable gap for agents needing to perform actual Salesforce operations, though the provided tools support preparatory workflows.
Plan Salesforce deploys, open pull requests and trigger pipelines from your AI client.
Provides capabilities that let LLM agents perform a range of infrastructure management tasks.
Run SOQL queries to explore and retrieve Salesforce data. Access accounts, contacts, opportunities…
Operate Linux, macOS and Windows from your LLM. Every action runs through an auditable allowlist.
