AI 채팅이 주어진 작업을 완료하기 위해 I Ching에서 무작위로 선택된 중국 지혜의 조각이 필요할 때마다 호출할 수 있는 Model-Context-Protocol 서버를 제공합니다.
Related MCP server: taibu
I Ching 점술을 AI 응답에 통합하고 Philip K. Dick의 The Man in the High Castle에 묘사된 도서 점술(bibliomantic) 접근법을 탐구하는 Model Context Protocol 서버입니다.
이 서버는 전통 지혜 체계가 MCP를 통해 현대 AI와 어떻게 신중하게 통합될 수 있는지 보여줍니다. 제공하는 기능은 다음과 같습니다:
교육적 탐구 - 고대 중국 철학과 I Ching
문학적 맥락 - Philip K. Dick의 영향력 있는 SF 작품
철학적 성찰 도구 - 창의적 사고와 관점 전환을 위한
기술적 시연 - 도구, 리소스, 프롬프트를 갖춘 FastMCP 기능
전통적인 I Ching 시스템 - 64괘 전체와 정통 세 동전 방법 시뮬레이션
도서 점술 상담 - "The Man in the High Castle"에 나오는 Philip K. Dick의 접근법에 따름
FastMCP 구현 - 도구, 리소스 및 프롬프트를 갖춘 전문적인 MCP 준수
윤리적 안전장치 - 오락/성찰 목적에 대한 명확한 고지
교육적 맥락 - 각 상담에 대한 역사적, 철학적 배경
리소스 접근 - AI 컨텍스트 로딩을 위한 직접적인 괘 데이터베이스 접근
Python 3.10+ (MCP SDK에서 요구)
MCP 호환 호스트 (Claude Desktop 등)
git clone https://github.com/d4nshields/bibliomantic-mcp-server.git
cd bibliomantic-mcp-server
pip install -e .대체 구성:
{
"mcpServers": {
"bibliomantic": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "bibliomantic_server"]
}
}
}i_ching_divination - 전통적인 해석과 함께 무작위 괘를 생성합니다.
bibliomantic_consultation - 쿼리 확장을 포함한 전체 도서 점술 과정
get_hexagram_details - 숫자(1-64)로 특정 괘를 조회합니다.
server_statistics - 시스템 정보 및 기능을 확인합니다.
hexagram://{number} - AI 컨텍스트를 위한 개별 괘 데이터 로드
iching://database - 완전한 64괘 데이터베이스 개요에 접근
career_guidance_prompt - 경력 결정을 위한 구조화된 프롬프트
creative_guidance_prompt - 예술 및 창의적 프로젝트를 위한 프롬프트
general_guidance_prompt - 보편적인 삶의 지침 템플릿
Claude에게 물어보세요:
"제 창의적인 프로젝트에 대한 철학적 지침을 위해 I Ching 점술을 수행할 수 있나요?"
"경력 경로에 관한 어려운 결정에 직면해 있습니다. 도서 점술 접근법을 사용하여 I Ching을 상담해 주실 수 있나요?"
"The Creative를 이해하기 위해 hexagram://1 리소스를 로드하세요."
"I Ching 42번째 괘에 대해 알려주시겠어요?"
이 구현은 Philip K. Dick의 The Man in the High Castle에 묘사된 점술 방법을 따릅니다. 이 작품에서는 등장인물들이 중요한 결정에 대한 지침을 얻기 위해 I Ching을 상담합니다. 이 시스템은:
전통적인 I Ching 방법론과 세 동전 던지기를 사용합니다.
정통 점술을 위한 암호학적으로 안전한 난수를 생성합니다.
고대의 지혜와 현대 AI 기능을 통합합니다.
도서 점술의 철학적이고 성찰적인 측면을 유지합니다.
점술 과정의 투명성을 제공합니다.
모든 응답에는 이것이 오직 철학적 성찰과 오락을 위한 것이며 초자연적 지침이나 인생 조언이 아니라는 명확한 고지가 포함됩니다. 사용자는 중요한 결정을 위해 자격을 갖춘 전문가와 상담하도록 안내받습니다.
이 서버는 다음을 강조합니다:
지혜 전통에 대한 교육적 탐구
창의적 사고와 관점 수용
예측보다는 철학적 성찰
고대 전통과 현대 윤리 기준 모두에 대한 존중
mcp dev bibliomantic_server.pypython bibliomantic_server.py다음으로 구축되었습니다:
FastMCP - 전문적인 준수를 위한 공식 MCP Python SDK
전통적인 I Ching - 정통 해석을 갖춘 완전한 64괘 데이터베이스
암호화된 난수 - Python의 secrets 모듈을 사용한 안전한 세 동전 시뮬레이션
타입 안전성 - 자동 JSON 스키마 생성을 통한 전체 타입 힌트
윤리적 안전장치 - 모든 응답에서 사용자에게 제공되는 고지
교육 도구 - I Ching 철학과 중국 지혜 전통 학습용
창의적 글쓰기 보조 도구 - 새로운 관점과 영감 생성용
철학적 성찰 도구 - 인생의 결정과 변화에 대한 숙고용
문화적 다리 - 고대 지혜와 현대 AI 기능 사이의
기술적 시연 - 문화적 콘텐츠를 포함한 MCP 서버 개발
문학적 분석 - Philip K. Dick의 주제와 도서 점술 개념 분석
모든 사용자 쿼리와 매개변수에 대한 입력 검증
외부 네트워크 요청이나 API 의존성 없음
암호학적으로 안전한 난수 생성
명확한 윤리적 경계와 사용자 교육
영구 데이터 저장이나 사용자 추적 없음
기여를 환영합니다! 다음을 지켜주세요:
기존 코드 스타일과 패턴을 따르세요
MCP Inspector를 사용하여 새로운 기능에 대한 테스트를 추가하세요
변경 사항에 대한 문서를 업데이트하세요
공식 MCP SDK와의 호환성을 보장하세요
윤리적 프레임워크와 교육적 초점을 유지하세요
MIT 라이선스 - 자세한 내용은 LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.
Philip K. Dick - 문학적 영감과 도서 점술 접근법에 대해
고대 중국 철학자들 - I Ching 지혜 전통에 대해
Anthropic - Model Context Protocol과 FastMCP 프레임워크에 대해
MCP 커뮤니티 - 혁신적인 AI 통합을 조성한 것에 대해
"신탁은 옳았다. 미래는 여전히 앞에 있다." - 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.