Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
funwarioisii

Cosense MCP Server

by funwarioisii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

cosense-mcp-server MCP Server

MCP server for cosense

Features

  • Get Page

Related MCP server: cc-session-search

Development

Install dependencies:

npm install

Build the server:

npm run build

For development with auto-rebuild:

npm run watch

Installation

git clone https://github.com/funwarioisii/cosense-mcp-server.git
cd cosense-mcp-server
npm run install
npm run build

To use with Claude Desktop, add the server config:

On MacOS: ~/Library/Application\ Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json On Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cosense-mcp-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/cosense-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "COSENSE_PROJECT_NAME": "your_project_name",
        "COSENSE_SID": "your_sid"
      }
    }
  }
}

COSENSE_SID is optional. If you want to use this server towards a private project, you need to set COSENSE_SID.

Debugging

Since MCP servers communicate over stdio, debugging can be challenging. We recommend using the MCP Inspector, which is available as a package script:

npm run inspector

The Inspector will provide a URL to access debugging tools in your browser.

Available Tools

2 tools
get_pageC
    Get a page from my-project project on cosen.se

    In cosense, a page is a cosense-style document with a title and a description.
    Bracket Notation makes links between pages.
    Example: [Page Title]
    -> "/my-project/Page Title"

    A page may have links to other pages.
    Links are rendered at the bottom of the page.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageTitleYesTitle of the page

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. While it describes what a page is and mentions links between pages, it doesn't address key behavioral aspects: what happens if the page doesn't exist, whether authentication is required, what format the response takes, or any rate limits. The description focuses on conceptual information rather than operational behavior.

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 reasonably concise with 5 sentences that each add value. It starts with the core purpose, then explains what a page is, describes the linking system, provides an example, and mentions link rendering. While efficient, the conceptual explanations could be more tightly integrated with the tool's practical usage.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the domain concept of pages and links but doesn't address critical operational aspects: what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how to handle missing pages. The conceptual background is useful but doesn't substitute for practical usage information.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'pageTitle' parameter. The description adds some context about how page titles work in the system (bracket notation, link formatting), but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a page from my-project project on cosen.se' - a specific verb (get) and resource (page). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_pages' by focusing on retrieving a single page rather than listing multiple pages. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the existence of 'list_pages' as a sibling tool suggests this is for retrieving individual pages rather than listing them, the description doesn't mention this distinction or provide any context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use this tool.

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

list_pagesB

List known cosense pages from my-project project on cosen.se

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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. It mentions 'List known cosense pages' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'known' means, how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be helpful for an agent to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('known cosense pages from my-project project on cosen.se'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_page' (which likely retrieves a single page), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_page' or any alternatives. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedget_page
    • First observedlist_pages
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get_page' retrieves a specific page with its content and links, while 'list_pages' enumerates all known pages. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as one is for detailed retrieval and the other for listing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: 'get_page' and 'list_pages'. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions, making it easy to understand their functions at a glance.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for its apparent domain of managing pages in a project. It lacks essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting pages, which are typical for such a domain, making it under-scoped and limiting for agents.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for page management. While it provides read operations (get and list), it misses critical CRUD functions such as create, update, and delete, as well as other potential operations like searching or managing links. This will likely cause agent failures in handling full page lifecycles.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches