Provides a quick overview of the repository state, including status of files and branches.
Allows running raw SQL queries against any local SQLite database.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP Dev Suite Search for 'FIXME' in all JavaScript files"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A high-performance Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides a unified set of tools for modern developers.
fs_search: Search files with glob patterns and content regex.
fs_replace: Batch find and replace across your codebase.
db_sqlite_query: Run raw SQL against any local SQLite database.
http_request: Make authenticated API calls (GET, POST, etc.) with custom headers.
sys_ports: Inspect active listening ports on your machine.
sys_info: Detailed system resource monitoring (CPU, RAM, OS).
git_status: Quick overview of your repository state.
Related MCP server: Enhanced MCP Server
npm install
npm run buildAdd this to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dev-suite": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/mcp-dev-suite/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}npm run devBuilt for the Claude MCP Tool Integration bounty.
Execute a SQL query against a local SQLite database file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The SQL query to execute. | |
| dbPath | Yes | Path to the .sqlite or .db file. | |
| params | No | Optional query parameters. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It states 'Execute a SQL query' without clarifying read vs write effects, error behavior, or security implications.
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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it omits important details, making it slightly under-specified.
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 potential for destructive SQL queries and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks essential context about side effects, permissions, and error handling.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Execute' and resource 'SQL query against a local SQLite database file.' It is specific and distinguished from sibling tools like fs_replace or http_request.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Perform find and replace across multiple files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| find | Yes | Regex pattern to find. | |
| dryRun | No | If true, only returns what would be changed. | |
| pattern | Yes | Glob pattern for files to modify. | |
| replace | Yes | Replacement string. | |
| directory | Yes | The root directory. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description fails to disclose behavioral traits like file modification, safety flags, or dry-run behavior. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence, concise, but lacks structure or front-loading of critical details.
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?
Description insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema. Missing return value, error handling, and dry-run behavior explanation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Perform find and replace across multiple files.' Distinguishes from sibling fs_search (search only) and others.
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 usage guidance provided. Does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like fs_search or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for files using glob patterns and optionally filter by content regex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Glob pattern (e.g., '**/*.ts'). | |
| directory | Yes | The root directory to search in. | |
| contentRegex | No | Optional regex to filter files by content. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the basic search functionality without disclosing behavioral traits such as recursion behavior, symlink handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a filesystem tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbose or redundant information.
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?
For a filesystem search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits important context like whether the search is recursive, if the directory must exist, or how the pattern is matched, making it incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the use of glob patterns and optional content regex but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for files using glob patterns and optionally filter by content regex.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (files), and method (glob patterns and optional content regex), making it distinct from sibling tools like fs_replace or git_status.
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 or not use this tool versus alternatives. The description is straightforward but lacks prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the git status of a directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | Yes | The git repository directory. |
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 'Get the git status' without disclosing behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., if directory is not a git repo), output format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format or output expectations. It only notes input requirements, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool returns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'directory' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the git status of a directory, which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools that handle databases, file operations, HTTP requests, and system info.
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 vs alternatives. However, siblings are distinct, so usage is implied. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Make an HTTP request with customizable method, headers, and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The target URL. | |
| body | No | Request body string. | |
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No | JSON object of headers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states it makes a request without disclosing side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Critical behavioral traits are missing.
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 single-sentence description is front-loaded with the core action and is free of fluff. However, it could include more detail (e.g., response behavior) without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description omits important context like response format, error behavior, and authentication requirements. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description merely rephrases 'customizable method, headers, and body' without adding new meaning or constraints beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Make' and resource 'HTTP request', clearly indicating the tool's function. Although it doesn't differentiate from siblings, the siblings are unrelated (database, file, git), so no confusion arises.
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 or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from context, which is limited given the sibling tools are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get system information (CPU, Memory, OS, Uptime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not elaborate on potential performance implications or data freshness. Adequate for a simple read, but no extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, direct, no superfluous words. Every word adds value by specifying what information is retrieved.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned (CPU, Memory, OS, Uptime). Zero parameters make it inherently complete. Provides sufficient context for a simple read tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'system information', listing specific categories (CPU, Memory, OS, Uptime). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling sys_ports by focusing on different aspects of system state.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sys_ports or other diagnostic tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List active network ports and the processes using them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry transparency. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose potential system requirements, permissions, or side effects beyond the stated action.
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?
Single sentence conveys the full purpose without extraneous words. Front-loaded verb and resource.
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?
For a parameterless tool without output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. No additional context appears necessary.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Description adds value by clarifying the output includes both ports and processes, going beyond the empty schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists active network ports and associated processes, using specific verb 'List' and resource 'active network ports'. Distinguishes from siblings like sys_info which provides broader system information.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention what to do with the information or under which scenarios it is best applied.
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.
v1.0.0db_sqlite_queryfs_replacefs_searchgit_statushttp_requestsys_infosys_portsEach tool targets a distinct area (database, file system, git, HTTP, system info), with no overlapping purposes.
All tools use snake_case with domain prefixes, though 'db_sqlite_query' is more specific than others.
7 tools is appropriate for a utility suite, covering a broad range without being overwhelming.
The set is a collection of unrelated utilities with many gaps (e.g., no file read/write beyond replace, no terminal command execution, no HTTP response handling).
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Your org's AI agents, tasks, runs, search, and brain files as MCP tools and resources.
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
327 dev tools via REST API and MCP. Generate Dockerfiles, schemas, K8s, APIs, and more.
Personal assistant MCP server with search, execute, packages, jobs, secrets, and integrations.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dhruvkej9/mcp-dev-suite'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
