en es ja ko zh

GraphQL MCP Server

Name: GraphQL MCP Server
Author: ctkadvisors

by ctkadvisors

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

GraphQL MCP 服务器

强类型的 TypeScript 模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，可通过 Claude AI 无缝访问任何 GraphQL API。

特征

强类型：使用 TypeScript 构建，以提高代码质量和类型安全性
动态 GraphQL 集成：通过自动工具生成连接到任何 GraphQL API
Schema Introspection ：自动发现并公开所有 GraphQL 操作作为工具
全面支持变异：通过适当的处理为 GraphQL 变异提供一流的支持
查询和变异白名单：可选白名单，用于控制哪些 GraphQL 操作可以公开
丰富的类型支持：正确处理复杂的 GraphQL 类型、输入对象和变量
符合 MCP 标准：遵循模型上下文协议格式，实现无缝 Claude 集成
智能查询生成：通过适当的字段选择构建高效的 GraphQL 查询
身份验证支持：简单的 API 密钥身份验证

Related MCP server: Gemini MCP Server

存储库结构

graphql-mcp/
├── src/
│   └── graphql-mcp-server.ts     # Main server implementation (TypeScript)
├── dist/                         # Compiled JavaScript (generated)
├── docs/
│   ├── GETTING_STARTED.md         # Setup and usage guide
│   ├── PROJECT_STATUS.md          # Current project status
│   └── TECHNICAL.md               # Technical documentation
├── .env.development               # Environment variables
├── .env.sample                    # Sample environment template
├── claude_desktop_sample_config.json  # Sample Claude Desktop config
├── package.json                   # Project dependencies
├── tsconfig.json                  # TypeScript configuration
├── run-graphql-mcp.sh             # Script to run the server
└── README.md                      # This file

先决条件

Node.js 18 或更高版本
TypeScript 5.x 或更高版本
支持 MCP 的 Claude Desktop
GraphQL API 端点（如果未指定，则默认为国家/地区 API）

安装

选项 1：从 npm

# Install globally
npm install -g graphql-mcp

# Run the server
graphql-mcp-server

选项 2：克隆存储库

# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/ctkadvisors/graphql-mcp.git
cd graphql-mcp

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Run the server
npm start

快速入门

1.设置环境变量

复制示例环境文件并使用您的 GraphQL API 详细信息进行更新：

cp .env.sample .env.development

使用您的 GraphQL API 端点和可选 API 密钥编辑.env.development 。

2. 构建并运行

首先编译 TypeScript 代码：

npm install
npm run build

然后运行服务器：

node dist/graphql-mcp-server.js

或者使用提供的脚本，一步编译并运行：

./run-graphql-mcp.sh

3. Claude 桌面集成

将此服务器添加到您的 Claude Desktop 配置中：

使用示例配置作为模板：

cp claude_desktop_sample_config.json ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

编辑配置并更新路径以指向您的安装：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "graphql": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/dist/graphql-mcp-server.js"],
      "env": {
        "GRAPHQL_API_ENDPOINT": "https://your-graphql-api.com/graphql",
        "GRAPHQL_API_KEY": "your-api-key-if-needed",
        "WHITELISTED_QUERIES": "[\"countries\",\"continent\",\"languages\"]"
      }
    }
  }
}

重启Claude Desktop以连接到服务器

您现在应该看到 GraphQL 操作是 Claude Desktop 中可用的工具！

白名单操作

出于安全或性能方面的考虑，你可能需要限制向 Claude 公开的 GraphQL 操作（查询和修改）。控制访问有两种方法：

启用/禁用突变：默认情况下，出于安全考虑，所有突变均处于禁用状态。要启用突变，请执行以下操作：

"env": {
  "GRAPHQL_API_ENDPOINT": "https://example-graphql-api.com/graphql",
  "ENABLE_MUTATIONS": "true"
}

操作白名单：您可以指定哪些特定操作可用：

"env": {
  "GRAPHQL_API_ENDPOINT": "https://example-graphql-api.com/graphql",
  "ENABLE_MUTATIONS": "true",
  "WHITELISTED_QUERIES": "[\"countries\",\"continent\",\"languages\"]",
  "WHITELISTED_MUTATIONS": "[\"createUser\",\"updateProfile\"]"
}

白名单可以采用两种格式指定：

作为 JSON 数组字符串（如上所示）： "[\"query1\",\"query2\"]"
以逗号分隔的列表： "query1,query2,query3"

重要提示：白名单值必须是字符串，而不是实际的 JSON 数组对象。环境变量始终以字符串形式传递，因此您需要正确转义 JSON 字符串中的引号，如上所示。

Claude Desktop 配置中正确格式的示例：

"graphql-api": {
  "command": "node",
  "args": [
    "/Users/username/Projects/graphql-mcp/dist/graphql-mcp-server.js"
  ],
  "env": {
    "GRAPHQL_API_ENDPOINT": "https://example-graphql-api.com/graphql",
    "NODE_ENV": "development",
    "DEBUG": "true",
    "ENABLE_MUTATIONS": "true",
    "WHITELISTED_QUERIES": "[\"getUser\",\"getProducts\",\"getOrders\"]",
    "WHITELISTED_MUTATIONS": "[\"createOrder\",\"updateProfile\"]"
  }
}

应避免的常见错误：

// INCORRECT - Will not work!
"WHITELISTED_QUERIES": ["getUser", "getProducts"],
"WHITELISTED_MUTATIONS": ["createOrder", "updateProfile"]

// CORRECT
"WHITELISTED_QUERIES": "[\"getUser\",\"getProducts\"]",
"WHITELISTED_MUTATIONS": "[\"createOrder\",\"updateProfile\"]"

如果没有为特定操作类型提供白名单，则 GraphQL 模式中该类型的所有操作都将可用。

示例用法

查询数据

一旦连接到 Claude Desktop，您可以使用以下命令：

View result from countries from graphql (local){}

或者使用参数：

View result from country from graphql (local){
  "code": "US"
}

使用变异

对于突变，工具以mutation_为前缀，以区别于查询：

View result from mutation_createUser from graphql (local){
  "name": "John Doe",
  "email": "john.doe@example.com"
}

或者更复杂的突变：

View result from mutation_updateProduct from graphql (local){
  "id": "prod-123",
  "input": {
    "name": "Updated Product Name",
    "price": 29.99,
    "description": "This is an updated product description"
  }
}

变异遵循与查询相同的模式，但允许您修改 GraphQL API 中的数据。

文档

有关详细信息，请参阅：

发展

要对服务器进行更改：

修改src/graphql-mcp-server.ts中的 TypeScript 源
编译 TypeScript 代码： npm run build
运行编译后的服务器： node dist/graphql-mcp-server.js

发布到 npm

要将此包发布到 npm：

# Make sure you're logged in to npm
npm login

# Build the project
npm run build

# Publish to npm
npm publish

该包将包含dist目录中预先构建的 JavaScript 文件，无需额外的构建步骤即可使用。

执照

该项目根据商业源许可证 1.1（BSL 1.1）获得许可，该许可证允许：

非商业用途：您可以将本软件用于任何非商业用途
内部业务使用：您可以将本软件用于内部业务运营，不得将其作为托管或管理服务提供给第三方
开源转换：2029年3月14日，代码将自动转换为MIT许可证

商业使用（包括将此软件作为服务提供给他人）需要获得 CTK Advisors 的商业许可。如需了解更多信息，请联系我们或查看完整的许可文件。

BSL 许可证旨在平衡开源可用性和可持续商业开发，让每个人都可以免费访问非商业用途，同时保护我们长期支持和增强软件的能力。

Available Tools

6 tools

continentD

GraphQL continent query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	code parameter (ID)

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

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. However, it only states it's a 'GraphQL continent query', which doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single phrase 'GraphQL continent query', which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded information and doesn't earn its place by adding value; it's too brief to be helpful, failing to convey purpose or usage effectively.

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 (a query with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., continent details), how to interpret the 'code' parameter, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive context is needed.

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 single parameter 'code' documented as 'code parameter (ID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what the code represents (e.g., continent code like 'AF' for Africa) or format details. 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.

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL continent query' restates the tool name 'continent' and the generic concept of a query, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what the query actually does (e.g., retrieve continent details by code), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'continents' (plural) which might list all continents. The purpose is vague beyond being a GraphQL operation.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'continent' (singular) versus 'continents' (plural), or how it relates to other sibling tools like 'countries' or 'languages'. There's no context or exclusions stated, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

continentsC

GraphQL continents query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No	filter - Input type: ContinentFilterInput

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

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. It only states this is a 'GraphQL continents query', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what data is returned, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though the brevity contributes to its lack of helpfulness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filtering works, or provide any context beyond the basic query nature. For a tool with potential complexity (nested filter), this is inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'filter' parameter is documented as 'filter - Input type: ContinentFilterInput'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't contradict it either.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL continents query' restates the tool name 'continents' and adds 'GraphQL query' which is tautological for a query tool. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve continent data with optional filtering'), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'continent' (singular).

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'continent' (singular) or 'countries'. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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

countriesC

GraphQL countries query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No	filter - Input type: CountryFilterInput

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

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 only states it's a 'GraphQL countries query', which implies a read operation but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what data it returns, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a query 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise with 'GraphQL countries query', which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for clarity. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses points for not providing enough substance to be truly helpful.

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 (1 parameter with nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the filter, or differentiate from siblings. For a query tool with these contextual signals, more detail is needed to be considered adequately complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the 'filter' parameter as an object of type 'CountryFilterInput'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of filter criteria or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL countries query' restates the tool name 'countries' and adds only the generic term 'GraphQL query', which is tautological. It doesn't specify what the query actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, search countries) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'country' (singular) or 'continent' tools. The purpose remains vague beyond being a GraphQL operation.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'country' (likely for a single country) or 'continents', nor does it provide any context for usage scenarios (e.g., filtering, listing all countries). The description lacks any indication of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

countryC

GraphQL country query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	code parameter (ID)

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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. It mentions 'GraphQL' and 'query', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the code is invalid. Minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise with two words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it borderline between conciseness and insufficiency.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the query returns, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'code' documented as 'code parameter (ID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. 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.

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL country query' states the technology and resource but lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'countries' or 'language'. It's vague about what the query actually does (fetch by code vs general query).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'countries' (plural) or 'language'. The description implies it's for querying countries via GraphQL, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

languageC

GraphQL language query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	code parameter (ID)

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. 'GraphQL language query' suggests a read operation but doesn't specify if it's safe, what permissions might be required, what format the response takes, or any rate limits. It doesn't disclose whether this queries language data or executes GraphQL operations, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity - it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is simple but doesn't effectively front-load the most critical information.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the contextual information is insufficient. For a tool with one required parameter that presumably returns language data (based on sibling tools), the description should explain what the tool returns, how it relates to the 'languages' sibling, and what the 'code' parameter represents beyond just being an ID.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'code parameter (ID)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL language query' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'language' with the addition of 'GraphQL query'. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves language information, validates language codes, etc.) or what resource it operates on. While it mentions 'GraphQL', it doesn't clarify if this executes a GraphQL query or returns GraphQL schema information about languages.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 its siblings (continent, continents, countries, country, languages). There's no indication of what differentiates this language tool from the 'languages' sibling tool, nor any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

languagesC

GraphQL languages query

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No	filter - Input type: LanguageFilterInput

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 but provides almost none. 'GraphQL languages query' implies a read operation but doesn't specify what data is returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any other operational characteristics. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied query nature.

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 extremely concise at just three words with zero wasted language. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured - it's front-loaded with the essential information that this is a GraphQL query for languages.

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 a tool with 1 parameter (including a nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, what the filter parameter actually does, or provide any operational context needed for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'filter' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any meaningful information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what LanguageFilterInput contains, what filtering capabilities exist, or provide examples of filter usage.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'GraphQL languages query' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'languages' with the addition of 'GraphQL query' - it doesn't specify what the tool actually does beyond being a query. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'language' (singular) or explain what 'languages' refers to in this context.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about when this query should be used instead of sibling tools like 'language', 'countries', or 'continents', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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.

6 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 18, 2025
- First observedcontinent
- First observedcontinents
- First observedcountries
- First observedcountry
- First observedlanguage
- First observedlanguages

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

C2.7/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:10 across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific GraphQL query type (continent vs. continents, country vs. countries, language vs. languages), with no overlap or ambiguity in functionality. The singular/plural pairs are well-defined and intuitive for querying individual items versus lists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern using singular and plural nouns (e.g., continent/continents, country/countries, language/languages) with no deviations in style or convention. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 6 tools, the count is reasonable and well-scoped for a GraphQL server focused on geographic and linguistic data queries. It slightly leans toward being minimal but covers core query types effectively without feeling bloated or incomplete.

Completeness3/5

The tool set provides basic query capabilities for continents, countries, and languages, but lacks obvious operations like mutations (e.g., create, update, delete) or more advanced GraphQL features. While the query surface is coherent, it is limited to read-only operations, leaving gaps for full lifecycle management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Grafbase
com.grafbase.api
The Grafbase MCP server sits in front of a GraphQL API and exposes an MCP protocol-compliant interface that allows AI agents and LLMs to explore and query GraphQL APIs using natural language. It provides tools to search schemas, introspect types and fields, and execute GraphQL queries while minimizing context bloat by returning only relevant schema subsets, with built-in support for authentication, authorization, and configurable access control.
API Testing Search Developer Tools
2
mcp COAuth
com.wix
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Developer Tools Content Management Systems App Automation
215
hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
238
Apideck MCP A
dev.apideck.mcp
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Developer Tools
42

Related MCP Servers

MPC Tally API Server
Web3 & Decentralized Tech Databases
crazyrabbitLTC
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A server that allows AI agents to interact with the Tally API to access DAO governance data, proposals, and metadata using Model Context Protocol (MCP), built with TypeScript and GraphQL.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-06 22:33 UTC)
15 npm
7
MIT
Gemini MCP Server
Autonomous Agents Code Execution
georgejeffers
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
A TypeScript server that integrates Google's Gemini Pro model with Claude Desktop through the Model Context Protocol, allowing Claude users to access Gemini's text generation capabilities.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-02-22 01:53 UTC)
7
96 npm
12
MIT
mcp-graphql
Databases API Testing
launchthatbrand
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with GraphQL APIs by providing schema introspection and query execution capabilities.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-08 21:13 UTC)
758 npm
3
MIT
GraphQL MCP Toolkit
Databases Developer Tools API Testing
kailashGN
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with GraphQL APIs by providing schema introspection and query execution capabilities.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-21 04:57 UTC)
8 npm
MIT

GraphQL MCP 服务器

特征

存储库结构

先决条件

安装

选项 1：从 npm

选项 2：克隆存储库

快速入门

1.设置环境变量

2. 构建并运行

3. Claude 桌面集成

白名单操作

示例用法

查询数据

使用变异

文档

发展

发布到 npm

执照

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches