⚠️ ВАЖНО : этот пакет в настоящее время находится в стадии разработки и еще не готов к использованию в производстве. Текущая версия находится в стадии разработки и может содержать неполные функции или критические изменения.
Самодиагностическая платформа для моделей ИИ, позволяющая им диагностировать и устранять проблемы, связанные с MCP.
flowchart TB
Client["AI Model\n(e.g., Claude)"]
subgraph "MCP Troubleshooter Server"
LogTools["Log Management"]
ConnTools["Connection Testing"]
ConfigTools["Configuration Analysis"]
FixTools["Fix Implementation"]
subgraph "Log Analysis Engine"
LogReader["Log Reader"]
LogParser["Pattern Recognition"]
ErrorClassifier["Issue Classification"]
end
subgraph "Connection Diagnostics"
ConnTester["Transport Testing"]
PortScanner["Port Availability"]
HandshakeTester["Protocol Validation"]
end
subgraph "Configuration Manager"
ConfigReader["Config Parser"]
ConfigValidator["Schema Validation"]
TemplateLibrary["Template Repository"]
end
end
FileSystem["Host File System\n(Logs & Configs)"]
OtherMCPs["Target MCP Servers"]
Client <--> LogTools
Client <--> ConnTools
Client <--> ConfigTools
Client <--> FixTools
LogTools --> LogAnalysisEngine
ConnTools --> ConnectionDiagnostics
ConfigTools --> ConfigurationManager
LogReader --> FileSystem
ConfigReader --> FileSystem
ConnTester --> OtherMCPs
FixTools --> FileSystem
FixTools --> OtherMCPs
style Client fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
style FileSystem fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
style OtherMCPs fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
style "MCP Troubleshooter Server" fill:#eff,stroke:#333,stroke-width:4pxRelated MCP server: OpenShift SRE Copilot
MCP Troubleshooter — это специализированный сервер MCP, который превращает устранение неполадок из задачи, доступной только разработчикам, в возможность, которую может использовать сам ИИ, позволяя моделям ИИ:
Анализируйте журналы MCP — автоматически сканируйте на наличие распространенных ошибок и предоставляйте подробную диагностику.
Проверка конфигураций — проверка конфигураций сервера на соответствие передовым практикам и выявление проблем.
Тестовые соединения — проверка сетевого подключения и доступности сервера.
Создание шаблонов — создание рабочих конфигураций сервера MCP для быстрой настройки.
Устранение распространенных проблем — обновление конфигураций и непосредственное внедрение решений
# Install the package globally
npm install -g @devlimelabs/mcp-troubleshooter
# Start the server
mcp-troubleshooterДобавьте это в конфигурацию вашего Claude Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"troubleshooter": {
"command": "mcp-troubleshooter"
}
}
}read-mcp-logs : извлекает и отображает файлы журналов MCP
analyze-mcp-logs : использует распознавание образов для определения распространенных сигнатур ошибок
read-mcp-config : извлекает и проверяет конфигурацию MCP Claude Desktop
update-mcp-config : безопасное обновление конфигураций с использованием надлежащих механизмов резервного копирования
validate-mcp-server-config : выполняет глубокую проверку конфигураций сервера
test-port-availability : проверяет, доступны ли требуемые порты для серверов MCP
check-mcp-server-process : проверяет правильность работы процессов сервера MCP
generate-mcp-server-template : создает настраиваемые шаблоны сервера для разных языков
generate-claude-desktop-config : Создает оптимизированные файлы конфигурации для Claude Desktop
common-mcp-issues : подробное руководство по общим проблемам MCP и их решениям
mcp-config-templates : Шаблоны конфигурации для различных настроек сервера MCP
User: My MCP server isn't connecting properly to Claude Desktop. Can you help diagnose it?
Claude: I'll help diagnose your MCP server connection issue. First, let me run some diagnostics.
[Uses check-mcp-server-process tool with the command from the user]
I've identified several possible issues with your MCP server:
1. **Connection Timeout**: The server isn't responding within the expected timeframe.
2. **JSON-RPC Format Error**: There seems to be a format issue in the JSON-RPC responses.
3. **Transport Mismatch**: Claude Desktop is expecting stdio transport, but your server might be using SSE.
Let me run a more specific connection test to confirm:
[Uses test-port-availability tool]
The connection test confirms that your server is starting, but it's timing out during the handshake phase. This is likely due to incorrect JSON-RPC message formatting in your server implementation.
Recommended fixes:
1. Ensure your server returns properly formatted JSON-RPC 2.0 responses
2. Check your transport implementation, it should be using proper stdio pipes
3. Verify that your server is correctly handling the initialize method
Would you like me to analyze a specific log file or check your server's code for these issues?User: Can you validate my Claude Desktop MCP configuration?
Claude: I'd be happy to validate your Claude Desktop MCP configuration.
[Uses read-mcp-config tool]
I've analyzed your Claude Desktop configuration file. Here are my findings:
✅ **Valid Configuration Structure**: The overall structure of your configuration is valid.
⚠️ **Path Issues**: 2 servers have invalid paths:
- "code-llm": The file path "/usr/local/bin/code-llm" doesn't exist
- "database-tool": The command "db-tool" is not in the PATH
❌ **Environment Variables**: 1 server has missing required environment variables:
- "firebase-mcp": Missing required FIREBASE_API_KEY
✅ **Transport Configuration**: All servers properly specify transport options
Recommended fixes:
1. Update the path for "code-llm" to the correct location
2. Install "db-tool" or correct its path
3. Add the missing FIREBASE_API_KEY to the "firebase-mcp" server configuration
Would you like me to help you implement any of these fixes?Windows : доступ к журналам и конфигурациям в %APPDATA%\Claude\
macOS : доступ к журналам в ~/Library/Logs/Claude/ и конфигурациям в ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/
Linux : доступ к журналам в ~/.local/share/Claude/logs/ и конфигурациям в ~/.config/Claude/
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/devlimelabs/master-mcps.git
cd master-mcps
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build the package
pnpm -F @devlimelabs/mcp-troubleshooter build
# Run tests
pnpm -F @devlimelabs/mcp-troubleshooter testМассачусетский технологический институт
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverName | No | Specific server name to analyze logs for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverName | Yes | Name of the MCP server to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverConfigs | Yes | Array of server configurations |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| features | Yes | Features to include in the template | |
| serverName | Yes | Name for the MCP server | |
| serverType | Yes | Type of server to generate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | Number of lines to read from the end | |
| serverName | No | Specific server name to filter logs for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port number to test |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | Yes | JSON configuration to write (entire file content) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverName | No | Specific server configuration to validate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0analyze-mcp-logscheck-mcp-server-processgenerate-claude-desktop-configgenerate-mcp-server-templateread-mcp-configread-mcp-logstest-port-availabilityupdate-mcp-configvalidate-mcp-server-configMost tools have distinct purposes targeting different aspects of MCP troubleshooting (logs, config, server process, ports, templates). However, 'analyze-mcp-logs' and 'read-mcp-logs' could potentially overlap in function if both involve log inspection, creating some ambiguity about their specific differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with hyphen-separated lowercase words (e.g., 'analyze-mcp-logs', 'check-mcp-server-process'). The naming convention is uniform throughout the set, making it predictable and easy to parse.
With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for MCP troubleshooting. The count is appropriate as it covers key areas like configuration, logs, server status, and testing without being overwhelming or too sparse for the domain.
The tool set provides good coverage for MCP troubleshooting, including reading/analyzing logs, managing configs, checking server processes, and testing ports. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for fixing or repairing issues (e.g., 'restart-mcp-server' or 'fix-mcp-config'), but core diagnostic and setup functions are well-represented.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP-native AI SRE: ask what's broken in production, get a reviewed GitHub fix PR.
Workflow diagnostics, capability routing, and x402 settlement for MCP-compatible agents.
AI-powered incident management and server monitoring via MCP.
Compliance frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, CMMC, NIST, more) delivered to AI agents as MCP tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/devlimelabs/mcp-troubleshooter-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
