F
licenseB
qualityB
maintenanceA test MCP server that exercises all protocol features including tools, resources, prompts, and sampling to help client builders validate implementations.
13
2
-
MCP Client Compatibility Probe
by kascada
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP Client Compatibility Probe
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA test MCP server that exercises all MCP protocol features, including prompts, tools, resources, and sampling, for client builders.214,312 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA test server that exercises all MCP protocol features including prompts, tools, resources, and sampling, intended for MCP client builders.214,312 npm-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides echo resource, tool, and prompt functionality for testing and demonstration.917 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server providing greeting and echo tools for testing and demonstration.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA minimal MCP server for debugging MCP clients. It echoes back everything it receives — tool arguments, session IDs, metadata — so you can inspect exactly what your client is sending.-
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 9 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct MCP feature: metadata inspection, structured output, handle-based state, MRTR input, error simulation, resource links, and search/fetch stubs. There is no overlap between their purposes.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names are a mix of verb_noun (echo_meta, create_handle), standalone verbs (search, fetch), and nouns (structured_result, tool_error). While all are snake_case, the varying forms make the naming pattern less predictable than a uniform verb_noun convention.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is a well-scoped set for a compatibility probe, covering the key MCP client interaction patterns without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers essential probe scenarios: metadata, structured content, handles, MRTR, errors, resource links, and search/fetch. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for protocol-level logging or sampling), but the core compatibility checks are well represented.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues