A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceThis TypeScript-based MCP server allows users to manage a simple notes system through creating and summarizing text notes using Model Context Protocol (MCP).
1,834 npm
8
MIT
Simple TypeScript MCP Server
by jasonkneen
シンプルなTypeScript MCPサーバー
基本的なCRUD操作を備えたモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーを構築するためのシンプルなTypeScriptテンプレートです。このテンプレートは、JSONレスポンスを返すMCPツールを作成するための基盤を提供します。
特徴
CRUD操作を備えたシンプルなノートAPI
インメモリデータストレージ
TypeScript実装
JSONレスポンス
Vitestでテスト準備完了
Related MCP server: MCP Server Starter
設定
npm installサーバーの実行
npm run dev生産のための構築
npm run build
npm start利用可能なツール
このテンプレートには、次の MCP ツールが含まれています。
getNote: IDでノートを取得するgetAllNotes: すべてのノートを取得するcreateNote: 新しいノートを作成するupdateNote: 既存のメモを更新するdeleteNote: IDでノートを削除する
テスト
次のようにテストを実行します。
npm testまたは視聴モード:
npm run test:watchカスタマイズ
ニーズに合わせてsrc/server.ts内のツールを変更することで、このテンプレートを独自の MCP サーバーの開始点として使用できます。
Available Tools
5 toolscreateNoteD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The title of the note | |
| content | Yes | The content of the note |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
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.
Conciseness1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose1/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
deleteNoteD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | The ID of the note to delete |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
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.
Conciseness1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose1/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
getAllNotesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
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.
Conciseness1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose1/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
getNoteD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | The ID of the note to retrieve |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
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.
Conciseness1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose1/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
updateNoteD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | The ID of the note to update | |
| title | No | The updated title of the note | |
| content | No | The updated content of the note |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
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.
Conciseness1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Parameters1/5
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.
Purpose1/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- Changed
getAllNotes1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
5 tool updates
- First observed
createNote - First observed
deleteNote - First observed
getAllNotes - First observed
getNote - First observed
updateNote
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Scored across 5 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: createNote, deleteNote, getAllNotes, getNote, and updateNote cover different CRUD operations on notes. The action (create, delete, get, update) and scope (all vs. single) make them easily distinguishable.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verbNoun pattern in camelCase (e.g., createNote, deleteNote). The naming is uniform across all five tools, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing notes, covering essential CRUD operations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD coverage for notes: create, read (get and getAll), update, and delete. There are no obvious gaps, as all lifecycle operations are included, allowing agents to handle full workflows without dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing
Related MCP Connectors
Kickstart development with a customizable TypeScript template featuring sample tools for greeting,…
Google Keep-style notes app with an MCP server for AI agents to read/write notes.
A simple Typescript MCP server built using the official MCP Typescript SDK and smithery/cli. This…
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceA production-ready template for creating Model Context Protocol servers with TypeScript, providing tools for efficient testing, development, and deployment.1223 npm47MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA TypeScript-based MCP server that enables users to manage text notes with features like note creation and summary generation using a Model Context Protocol.1-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceThis TypeScript-based MCP server allows users to manage and interact with a note system through Model Context Protocol, enabling note creation and summarization with URIs and metadata.1MIT