Skip to main content
Glama
hyen43

Model Context Protocol Server

by hyen43
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

my-mcp-server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server built with mcp-framework.

Quick Start

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

Related MCP server: MCP Tool

Project Structure

my-mcp-server/
├── src/
│   ├── tools/        # MCP Tools
│   │   └── ExampleTool.ts
│   └── index.ts      # Server entry point
├── package.json
└── tsconfig.json

Adding Components

The project comes with an example tool in src/tools/ExampleTool.ts. You can add more tools using the CLI:

# Add a new tool
mcp add tool my-tool

# Example tools you might create:
mcp add tool data-processor
mcp add tool api-client
mcp add tool file-handler

Tool Development

Example tool structure:

import { MCPTool } from "mcp-framework";
import { z } from "zod";

interface MyToolInput {
  message: string;
}

class MyTool extends MCPTool<MyToolInput> {
  name = "my_tool";
  description = "Describes what your tool does";

  schema = {
    message: {
      type: z.string(),
      description: "Description of this input parameter",
    },
  };

  async execute(input: MyToolInput) {
    // Your tool logic here
    return `Processed: ${input.message}`;
  }
}

export default MyTool;

Publishing to npm

  1. Update your package.json:

    • Ensure name is unique and follows npm naming conventions

    • Set appropriate version

    • Add description, author, license, etc.

    • Check bin points to the correct entry file

  2. Build and test locally:

    npm run build
npm link
my-mcp-server  # Test your CLI locally

  3. Login to npm (create account if necessary):

    npm login

  4. Publish your package:

    npm publish

After publishing, users can add it to their claude desktop client (read below) or run it with npx


## Using with Claude Desktop

### Local Development

Add this configuration to your Claude Desktop config file:

**MacOS**: `~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json`
**Windows**: `%APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json`

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "my-mcp-server": {
      "command": "node",
      "args":["/absolute/path/to/my-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

After Publishing

Add this configuration to your Claude Desktop config file:

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

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "my-mcp-server": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["my-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

Building and Testing

  1. Make changes to your tools

  2. Run npm run build to compile

  3. The server will automatically load your tools on startup

Learn More

Available Tools

3 tools
example_toolC

An example tool that processes messages

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage to process

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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. It only states 'processes messages' without detailing traits like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loaded critical information, such as specific actions or context, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'processes' means, the tool's behavior, or return values, making it inadequate for a tool with one parameter and no structured support.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'message' parameter documented as 'Message to process'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'processes messages', which provides a vague purpose without specifying what processing entails (e.g., filtering, analyzing, transforming). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'weather' or 'weather_api', leaving ambiguity about its role in the toolset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools 'weather' and 'weather_api'. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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

weatherC

도시의 날씨 정보를 가져오기

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes도시 이름 (예: 런던)

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('가져오기' - get/fetch), implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what format the weather information returns. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple single-parameter query) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what weather information is returned (e.g., temperature, conditions), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral annotations, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'city' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what's already provided. 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: '도시의 날씨 정보를 가져오기' (Get weather information for a city). It specifies the verb ('가져오기' - get/fetch) and resource ('날씨 정보' - weather information) with a target scope ('도시' - city). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'weather_api', so it doesn't reach a perfect 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 alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'weather_api' and 'example_tool', but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this specific weather tool over others.

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

weather_apiC

Open-Meteo API를 사용하여 도시의 실제 날씨 정보를 가져오기

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes날씨를 가져올 도시 이름

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. It mentions using the Open-Meteo API but does not describe traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for an API-based tool with no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, 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.

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of an API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'city' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the city is used to fetch weather data, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '가져오기' (fetch/retrieve) weather information for a city using the Open-Meteo API. It specifies the resource (weather information) and the target (city), but does not distinguish it from the sibling 'weather' tool, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 alternatives like the sibling 'weather' tool. It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 3 tool updates
    • First observedexample_tool
    • First observedweather
    • First observedweather_api
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The 'weather' and 'weather_api' tools have significant overlap in purpose, as both appear to fetch weather information for a city, making them ambiguous and prone to misselection. The 'example_tool' is distinct but vague, adding to the overall confusion in the tool set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed with 'example_tool' and 'weather_api' using snake_case, while 'weather' is a single word, showing some inconsistency. However, the names are still readable and follow a basic pattern, but lack a uniform verb_noun structure or consistent style.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the count is borderline thin for a general-purpose server like 'Model Context Protocol Server', suggesting it might be under-scoped. While not extreme, it feels insufficient to cover a broad domain effectively, indicating a potential mismatch in scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for the server's implied domain, with overlapping weather tools and a vague example tool, leaving obvious gaps in functionality. There is no clear coverage of core operations or a coherent workflow, which will likely cause agent failures due to missing essential capabilities.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hyen43/mcpServer'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server