Stellt einen Model-Context-Protocol-Server bereit, den Ihr KI-Chat jedes Mal aufrufen kann, wenn er ein zufällig ausgewähltes Stück chinesischer Weisheit aus dem I Ching benötigt, um seine gegebene Aufgabe zu erfüllen.
Related MCP server: taibu
Ein Model Context Protocol-Server, der I-Ching-Wahrsagung mit KI-Antworten integriert und den bibliomantischen Ansatz untersucht, der in Philip K. Dicks The Man in the High Castle beschrieben wird.
Dieser Server demonstriert, wie traditionelle Weisheitssysteme mit Bedacht in moderne KI integriert werden können. Er bietet:
Lehrreiche Erkundung der alten chinesischen Philosophie und des I Ching
Literarischer Kontext aus Philip K. Dicks einflussreichem Science-Fiction-Werk
Werkzeuge zur philosophischen Reflexion für kreatives Denken und Perspektivenwechsel
Technische Demonstration der FastMCP-Fähigkeiten mit Tools, Ressourcen und Prompts
Traditionelles I-Ching-System: Alle 64 Hexagramme mit authentischer Simulation der Drei-Münzen-Methode
Bibliomantische Beratung: Dem Ansatz von Philip K. Dick aus „The Man in the High Castle“ folgend
FastMCP-Implementierung: Professionelle MCP-Konformität mit Tools, Ressourcen und Prompts
Ethische Schutzmaßnahmen: Klare Haftungsausschlüsse zum Unterhaltungs- und Reflexionszweck
Bildungskontext: Historischer und philosophischer Hintergrund für jede Beratung
Ressourcenzugriff: Direkter Zugriff auf die Hexagramm-Datenbank für das Laden von KI-Kontexten
Python 3.10+ (erforderlich für das MCP SDK)
MCP-kompatibler Host (Claude Desktop, etc.)
git clone https://github.com/d4nshields/bibliomantic-mcp-server.git
cd bibliomantic-mcp-server
pip install -e .Alternative Konfigurationen:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bibliomantic": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "bibliomantic_server"]
}
}
}i_ching_divination – Erzeugt zufällige Hexagramme mit traditionellen Interpretationen
bibliomantic_consultation – Vollständiger bibliomantischer Prozess mit Abfrageerweiterung
get_hexagram_details – Schlägt bestimmte Hexagramme anhand der Nummer (1–64) nach
server_statistics – Zeigt Systeminformationen und Fähigkeiten an
hexagram://{number} – Lädt einzelne Hexagrammdaten für den KI-Kontext
iching://database – Bietet Zugriff auf die vollständige Übersicht der 64-Hexagramm-Datenbank
career_guidance_prompt – Strukturierte Prompts für Karriereentscheidungen
creative_guidance_prompt – Prompts für künstlerische und kreative Projekte
general_guidance_prompt – Universelle Lebensberatungsvorlagen
Fragen Sie Claude:
„Können Sie eine I-Ching-Wahrsagung für philosophische Orientierung zu meinen kreativen Projekten durchführen?“
„Ich stehe vor einer schwierigen Entscheidung bezüglich meines Karrierewegs. Können Sie das I Ching mit dem bibliomantischen Ansatz befragen?“
„Laden Sie die Ressource hexagram://1, um The Creative zu verstehen.“
„Können Sie mir etwas über das I-Ching-Hexagramm Nummer 42 erzählen?“
Diese Implementierung folgt der Wahrsagemethode, die in Philip K. Dicks The Man in the High Castle beschrieben wird, wo Charaktere das I Ching für Orientierung bei wichtigen Entscheidungen befragen. Das System:
Verwendet die traditionelle I-Ching-Methodik mit Drei-Münzen-Würfen
Erzeugt kryptographisch sichere Zufälligkeit für authentische Wahrsagung
Integriert alte Weisheit mit modernen KI-Fähigkeiten
Bewahrt die philosophischen und reflektiven Aspekte der Bibliomantik
Bietet Transparenz im Wahrsageprozess
Alle Antworten enthalten klare Haftungsausschlüsse, dass dies nur der philosophischen Reflexion und Unterhaltung dient, nicht als übernatürliche Führung oder Lebensberatung. Benutzer werden darauf hingewiesen, für wichtige Entscheidungen qualifizierte Fachleute zu konsultieren.
Der Server betont:
Pädagogische Erkundung von Weisheitstraditionen
Kreatives Denken und Perspektivenwechsel
Philosophische Reflexion statt Vorhersage
Respekt sowohl für alte Traditionen als auch für moderne ethische Standards
mcp dev bibliomantic_server.pypython bibliomantic_server.pyErstellt mit:
FastMCP – Offizielles MCP-Python-SDK für professionelle Konformität
Traditionelles I Ching – Vollständige 64-Hexagramm-Datenbank mit authentischen Interpretationen
Kryptographische Zufälligkeit – Sichere Drei-Münzen-Simulation mit dem secrets-Modul von Python
Typsicherheit – Vollständige Typannotationen mit automatischer JSON-Schema-Generierung
Ethische Schutzmaßnahmen – Benutzerorientierte Haftungsausschlüsse in allen Antworten
Bildungswerkzeug zum Lernen über die I-Ching-Philosophie und chinesische Weisheitstraditionen
Hilfe für kreatives Schreiben zur Erzeugung neuer Perspektiven und Inspiration
Werkzeug zur philosophischen Reflexion zum Nachdenken über Lebensentscheidungen und Veränderungen
Kulturelle Brücke zwischen alter Weisheit und modernen KI-Fähigkeiten
Technische Demonstration der MCP-Serverentwicklung mit kulturellen Inhalten
Literarische Analyse von Philip K. Dicks Themen und bibliomantischen Konzepten
Eingabevalidierung für alle Benutzeranfragen und Parameter
Keine externen Netzwerkanfragen oder API-Abhängigkeiten
Kryptographisch sichere Zufallserzeugung
Klare ethische Grenzen und Benutzeraufklärung
Keine dauerhafte Datenspeicherung oder Benutzerverfolgung
Beiträge sind willkommen! Bitte:
Befolgen Sie den bestehenden Code-Stil und die bestehenden Muster
Fügen Sie Tests für neue Funktionen mit MCP Inspector hinzu
Aktualisieren Sie die Dokumentation für alle Änderungen
Stellen Sie die Kompatibilität mit dem offiziellen MCP SDK sicher
Bewahren Sie das ethische Rahmenwerk und den pädagogischen Fokus
MIT-Lizenz – siehe Datei LICENSE für Details.
Philip K. Dick für die literarische Inspiration und den bibliomantischen Ansatz
Die alten chinesischen Philosophen für die I-Ching-Weisheitstradition
Anthropic für das Model Context Protocol und das FastMCP-Framework
Die MCP-Community für die Förderung innovativer KI-Integrationen
„Das Orakel hatte recht. Die Zukunft liegt noch vor uns.“ – Philip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle
Enhanced bibliomantic consultation with full traditional I Ching elements. DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED CONTENT while maintaining exact interface compatibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It mentions 'enhanced content' and 'maintaining exact interface compatibility' which gives some implementation context, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs calculations, returns interpretations, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what 'consultation' entails. The description is too vague about the actual operation and output.
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 brief (two sentences) and doesn't waste words, but it's not effectively structured. The first sentence is somewhat informative while the second is technical implementation detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. While concise, it's not optimally front-loaded with the most important information for tool selection.
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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and only one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but inadequate. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'traditional I Ching elements' which provides some context, but doesn't explain what makes it different from i_ching_divination or what 'consultation' means. For a single-parameter tool with output schema, more could be done to explain the tool's unique value and use cases.
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 has 1 parameter (query) with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description provides no information about what the 'query' parameter should contain, its format, or examples of valid inputs. For a single parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose and expected content, which it fails to do.
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 states 'Enhanced bibliomantic consultation with full traditional I Ching elements' which provides some purpose context, but it's vague about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify the action (consult? analyze? interpret?) or what resource it operates on. The second sentence about 'maintaining exact interface compatibility' is technical rather than functional. This is better than a tautology but lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed for high scores.
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?
There are no explicit guidelines about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_hexagram_details, i_ching_divination, server_statistics). The description mentions 'enhanced' and 'full traditional I Ching elements' which might imply this is a more comprehensive option than i_ching_divination, but this is only implied rather than stated. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enhanced hexagram details with traditional Chinese names, Unicode symbols, and rich commentary. MAINTAINS BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY while dramatically improving content quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hexagram_number | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 mentions 'enhanced' details and 'improving content quality,' which suggests this might return more or better data than a basic version, but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., format, structure, or performance). It also doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information ('Enhanced hexagram details...'), making it efficient. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies content, and the second addresses compatibility. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 1 simple parameter, an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and content enhancements but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter meaning. For a tool with low complexity, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could confuse an AI agent, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral aspects.
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 description doesn't mention the 'hexagram_number' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with only 1 parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles the input definition adequately, and the output schema can cover return values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but doesn't severely hinder understanding due to simplicity.
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 states the tool provides 'enhanced hexagram details' with specific content elements (traditional Chinese names, Unicode symbols, rich commentary), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (retrieve? fetch? display?) or clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'i_ching_divination' which might also provide hexagram information. The mention of 'backward compatibility' suggests this might replace or enhance an existing tool, but this isn't explicitly stated.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'i_ching_divination' or 'bibliomantic_consultation' is provided. The description implies it's for getting detailed hexagram information, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The backward compatibility note hints at context for existing users but doesn't help an AI agent decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enhanced I Ching divination with traditional three-coin method and changing lines. MAINTAINS EXACT BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY while providing richer content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 mentions 'enhanced' divination and 'richer content,' but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The backward compatibility note is useful but insufficient 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that convey the main points efficiently. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence adds value (method details and compatibility). However, it could be more structured with clearer separation of features.
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 (divination with a method) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and method. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks details on behavior and inputs. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.
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 one parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what the 'query' parameter is for, its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 states the tool performs 'I Ching divination with traditional three-coin method and changing lines,' which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'enhanced' and 'richer content' mean, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bibliomantic_consultation' or 'get_hexagram_details.' The mention of backward compatibility adds context but doesn't sharpen the core purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bibliomantic_consultation' or 'get_hexagram_details.' The description implies it's for I Ching divination but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it offers minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enhanced server statistics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 fails completely. 'Enhanced server statistics' gives no indication of whether this is a read operation, a calculation, a report generation, or something else. It doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or what 'enhanced' means in practical terms. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the vague name.
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?
While technically concise (only two words), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't convey meaningful information - 'Enhanced' is vague and 'server statistics' merely repeats the tool name. This isn't front-loaded with critical information; it's just insufficient.
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 that this tool has no parameters, has an output schema (which helps), and has 100% schema coverage, the description should be more complete. However, 'Enhanced server statistics' fails to explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, or what makes it 'enhanced'. For a tool with zero parameters, the description could easily provide more context about what statistics are returned, their format, or their purpose. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is inadequate.
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 zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required, this is adequately covered by the structured schema information. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 'Enhanced server statistics' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'server_statistics' with the adjective 'Enhanced'. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'generate', 'analyze') or what specific statistics it provides. While it distinguishes from the three sibling tools (which are all related to divination/consultation), it doesn't clearly articulate what makes these statistics 'enhanced' compared to basic statistics.
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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate. Given that the sibling tools are all divination-related (bibliomantic_consultation, get_hexagram_details, i_ching_divination), there's no indication of whether this tool is part of that same domain or serves a different purpose entirely.
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.
bibliomantic_consultationget_hexagram_detailsi_ching_divinationserver_statisticsScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: bibliomantic_consultation for general consultation, get_hexagram_details for retrieving specific hexagram information, i_ching_divination for performing divination, and server_statistics for monitoring usage. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
The naming is mixed: bibliomantic_consultation and get_hexagram_details follow a verb_noun pattern, while i_ching_divination is a noun-based name and server_statistics is a simple noun phrase. This inconsistency makes the set less predictable, though the names remain readable.
With 4 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on I Ching and bibliomancy. Each tool serves a distinct role in consultation, divination, information retrieval, and monitoring, making the set efficient and purposeful.
The toolset covers core I Ching functionalities: consultation, divination, and hexagram details, with server_statistics for operational insights. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for saving or managing past consultations, but agents can work around this with existing tools.
I Ching hexagram casts, 64 hexagram meanings and changing lines for AI agents.
Divination for AI agents: Hafez, Tarot, I Ching, Runes, Geomancy, and the five-oracle Council.
Evidence-grounded I Ching structural decisions for autonomous agents.
I-Ching (周易) oracle: cast a hexagram, read classical commentary, get a reflection. Bilingual.