Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
mohit-novo

Lithic MCP Server

by mohit-novo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Lithic MCP 服务器 (TypeScript)

用于 Lithic API 的模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器的 TypeScript 实现，提供对 Lithic 银行和卡服务的只读访问。

特征

  • 使用 MCP SDK 的现代 TypeScript 实现

  • 对所有 Lithic API 端点的只读访问权限

  • 用于访问 Lithic 资源的类型安全工具

  • Docker 支持

  • 改进的错误处理和验证

Related MCP server: MCP (Model Context Protocol) Server

快速入门

使用 Docker（推荐）

  1. 构建 Docker 镜像：

npm run docker:build

  1. 运行服务器：

LITHIC_API_KEY=your_key_here npm run docker:run

手动设置

  1. 安装依赖项：

npm install

  1. 构建 TypeScript 代码：

npm run build

  1. 启动服务器：

LITHIC_API_KEY=your_key_here npm start

MCP 配置

将其添加到您的.cursor/mcp.json或 Claude Desktop 配置中：

{
  "lithic": {
    "command": "docker",
    "args": [
      "run",
      "--rm",
      "-i",
      "-e", "LITHIC_API_KEY",
      "-e", "LITHIC_API_BASE_URL",
      "mcp/lithic"
    ],
    "env": {
      "LITHIC_API_KEY": "your_lithic_api_key_here",
      "LITHIC_API_BASE_URL": "https://api.lithic.com/v1"
    }
  }
}

可用工具

该 MCP 服务器提供以下工具：

  • get_resource ：通过 ID/token 获取特定的 Lithic 资源

  • list_resources ：列出给定类型的资源

环境变量

  • LITHIC_API_KEY - 您的 Lithic API 密钥（必需）

  • LITHIC_API_BASE_URL - Lithic API 基本 URL（默认值： https ://sandbox.lithic.com/v1）

支持的资源类型

  • 卡片

  • 帐户

  • 财务账户

  • 交易

  • 事件

  • 平衡

  • 争议

  • 外部银行账户

  • 报告

  • 网络钩子

  • 账户持有人

发展

对于开发，您可以使用监视模式：

npm run dev

当您对源代码进行更改时，这将自动重建并重新启动服务器。

Available Tools

2 tools
get_resourceC

Get a specific Lithic resource by ID

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceTypeYesType of resource (card, account, transaction, etc.)
resourceIdYesID/token of the resource to fetch

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 states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the resource doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 fetching a resource by ID (which involves potential errors like not found), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for a tool that likely requires more context for reliable use.

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 both parameters ('resourceType' and 'resourceId') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific Lithic resource by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_resources' beyond the singular vs. plural naming, which could be more explicit about the distinction between retrieving a single item versus listing multiple items.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_resources' or any other tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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

list_resourcesC

List resources of a specific type

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceTypeYesType of resource to list (cards, accounts, transactions, etc.)

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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. It states a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no resources are found. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite the clean structure.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on resource types, listing behavior (e.g., pagination), and differentiation from 'get_resource'. Without annotations or output schema, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively, resulting in a significant gap.

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 parameter 'resourceType' documented as 'Type of resource to list (cards, accounts, transactions, etc.)'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it only restates the parameter's purpose generically. 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.

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'List resources of a specific type' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('resources'), but it's vague about what 'resources' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_resource'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or domain.

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 the sibling 'get_resource', nor any context about prerequisites or alternatives. The description implies usage for listing by type but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name 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.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_resource
    • First observedlist_resources
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_resource retrieves a single resource by ID, while list_resources retrieves multiple resources of a type. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_resource and list_resources), using snake_case and clear action verbs. The naming is perfectly predictable and uniform.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels too thin for a general-purpose resource management domain. It lacks essential operations like create, update, or delete, making it incomplete for typical CRUD workflows.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for resource management. It only supports read operations (get and list), missing create, update, and delete capabilities, which are fundamental for a full lifecycle.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • SQL MCP Server

    t3ta
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A TypeScript implementation of a Model Context Protocol server that enables language models to securely query PostgreSQL databases, including those behind SSH bastion tunnels.
    15 npm
    1
    MIT

  • MCP (Model Context Protocol)

    HarishGangula
    -
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A TypeScript implementation of a Model Context Protocol server and client that enables interaction with language models (specifically Mistral running on Ollama).
    -

  • Salesforce MCP Server

    steffensbola
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A TypeScript implementation of a Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with Salesforce data through SOQL queries, SOSL searches, and CRUD operations.
    2
    MIT