Сервер MCP (Model Context Protocol) только для чтения для мониторинга Azure Data Factory и анализа первопричин, созданный для использования из VS Code / Claude Code.
Статус: шаг 1 (скелет + проверка работоспособности). Подключения к Azure пока нет — оно будет добавлено на шаге 2 (аутентификация) и на шаге 3 (инструменты ADF).
##Требования
Python 3.11+
##локальная настройка
cd adf-mcp-server
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate # Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
cp .env.example .envСейчас в .env нужен только блок настроек сервера (ADF_MCP_*). Строки AZURE_* — заготтовки для шага 2: оставьте их пока закомментированными.
##Запуск сервера
python -m adf_mcp.server
# or, after `pip install -e .`:
adf-mcp-serverСервер общается через стандартный ввод/вывод — запуск в терминале никеть как зависший; это нормально, ведь он ждёт подключения MCP-клиента (расширение VS Code, Claude Code, mcp dev и т. д.) через stdin/stdout.
###Настройка в VS Code
Укажите конфигурацию сервера в вашем расширении, совместимом с MCP:
{
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "adf_mcp.server"],
"cwd": "/absolute/path/to/adf-mcp-server"
}Подключившись, вызовите инструмент health_check — он должен вернуть {"status": "ok", ...} без обращения к Azure.
##Запуск тестов
pip install -e ".[dev]" pytest-asyncio
pytest -vСмотрите папку src/adf_mcp/ — в ней: server.py (транспорт MCP), config.py (настройки), logging_config.py (структурированное логирование). Доменная граница и подключение к Azure добавляются в src/adf_mcp/domain/ начиная с шага 3.
Related MCP server: azure-adf-mcp
Клиент сразу показывает «сервер отключен»: сначала проверьте, что python -m adf_mcp.server запускается без ошибок сам по себе — исключение при запуске убьёт процесс до того, как клиент вообще подключится.
Клиент не может распарсить ответы / видит искажённый вывод: в stdout попало что-то помимо самого протокола MCP (например, случайный print()). Всё логирование в работаем проекте направлено в stderr именно для этого.
Report that the MCP server is up and configuration loaded correctly.
Useful as a first call from any MCP client (VS Code, Claude Code) to confirm the server started, before any Azure-dependent tools exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
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 clearly indicates a read-only status check (no mutation implied) and adds a timing context ('before any Azure-dependent tools exist') that is useful. It doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or failure behavior, but the output schema likely covers those details. The added context is valuable and goes beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two short sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. No filler or repetition, every sentence earned its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose and usage. It tells the agent exactly when to call it and why, and the output schema handles return details. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially fully described (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description needs no parameter information since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('MCP server is up and configuration loaded correctly'). It is obviously distinct from the sibling Azure tools (factories, pipelines, triggers), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs when to use: 'first call from any MCP client (VS Code, Claude Code) to confirm the server started, before any Azure-dependent tools exist.' This gives clear context and implicitly advises against using it after other tools, making its role in the workflow obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0health_checkScored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so no agent could confuse it with another. The health_check tool has a clear and unique purpose as a readiness probe.
The single tool name is clean and uses standard snake_case; however, with only one tool, no meaningful set-wide naming convention is established.
A server named adf-mcp-server exposing only a health_check tool is far below the minimum viable tool surface. This is a single trivial tool, which matches the lowest end of the scale.
The server gives agents no way to interact with the Azure Data Factory domain at all. A health check alone is severely incomplete and leaves every meaningful user workflow unavailable.
Read-only MCP server for AIStatusDashboard status, incidents, metrics, and fallback recommendations.
MCP uptime, schema, auth, and SLA receipt monitoring.
Governed data discovery, exact queries, decisions, simulations, and runtime utilities over MCP.
Read-only MCP for identity resolution and write guardrails.
