Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
oldrepublicwizard

Cedardiff MCP Server

by oldrepublicwizard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

시더디프 MCP 서버

CEDARScript 문법 규칙으로 파일 편집

이는 코드 조작을 위한 SQL 유사 언어인 CEDARScript를 구현한 TypeScript 기반 MCP 서버입니다. 다음과 같은 기능을 제공합니다.

  • 코드 조작 명령에 대한 포괄적인 문법

  • CEDARScript 작업 실행을 위한 도구

  • 복잡한 패턴 매칭 및 변환 지원

특징

문법

  • 코드 작업(DDL, DML)을 위한 SQL 유사 구문

  • 파일, 함수, 클래스 및 메서드 타겟팅 지원

  • 정규식, 접두사/접미사 및 들여쓰기 규칙을 사용한 패턴 매칭

  • 블록 수준 코드 조작 기능

도구

  • edit_file - CEDARScript 명령 실행

    • 스크립트와 작업 디렉토리를 매개변수로 사용합니다.

    • 파일 생성, 삭제, 이동 및 업데이트를 지원합니다.

    • 패턴 기반 코드 변환

구현 상태

현재 테스트 결과 다음 사항이 밝혀졌습니다.

  • 명령어 구문 분석이 정상적으로 작동합니다.

  • 문법은 복잡한 연산을 지원합니다

  • 파일 쓰기 메커니즘이 개선되어야 합니다.

  • 성공 메시지가 반환되었지만 변경 사항이 유지되지 않았습니다.

Related MCP server: ast-editor

개발

종속성 설치:

지엑스피1

서버를 빌드하세요:

npm run build

자동 재빌드를 사용한 개발의 경우:

npm run watch

설치

Claude Desktop과 함께 사용하려면 서버 구성을 추가하세요.

MacOS의 경우: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json Windows의 경우: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cedardiff": {
      "command": "/path/to/cedardiff/build/index.js"
    }
  }
}

디버깅

MCP 서버는 stdio를 통해 통신하므로 디버깅이 어려울 수 있습니다. 패키지 스크립트로 제공되는 MCP Inspector를 사용하는 것이 좋습니다.

npm run inspector

검사기는 브라우저에서 디버깅 도구에 액세스할 수 있는 URL을 제공합니다.

ES 모듈 마이그레이션

이 프로젝트는 ES 모듈을 사용하도록 마이그레이션되었습니다. 주요 변경 사항은 다음과 같습니다.

  • package.json 에 "type": "module" 추가했습니다.

  • "module": "ESNext" 사용하도록 tsconfig.json 업데이트했습니다.

  • 가져오기/내보내기 명령문을 ES 모듈 구문으로 변환했습니다.

  • ES 모듈과 호환되도록 업데이트된 유형 정의

호환성 참고 사항

  • Node.js 버전 12 이상을 사용하고 있는지 확인하세요.

  • 모듈 가져오기의 경우 require() 대신 import 사용하세요.

  • 로컬 파일을 가져올 때 .js 확장자를 사용하세요.

Available Tools

1 tool
edit_fileC

Edit a file using CEDARScript syntax

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptYesCEDARScript commands to execute
workingDirYesWorking directory for resolving file paths

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 mentions 'Edit a file' which implies mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like permissions required, whether edits are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, or practical usage context, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('script' and 'workingDir'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of CEDARScript commands or working directory conventions, meeting 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 action ('Edit a file') and specifies the method ('using CEDARScript syntax'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, without sibling tools for comparison, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 other file editing methods or alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, offering only the basic functionality without usage context.

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. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observededit_file
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'edit_file' has a clearly distinct purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'edit_file' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and there are no other tools to cause inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or narrow scope. For a server named 'Cedardiff MCP Server' which implies CEDAR-related operations, one tool feels insufficient to cover typical needs like validation, querying, or other file operations.

Completeness1/5

The server is severely incomplete for its apparent domain of CEDAR operations. With only an 'edit_file' tool, there are obvious gaps such as creating, reading, validating, or deleting files, and no coverage of other CEDAR-related tasks like policy management or analysis.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

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

  • ast-editor

    kambleakash0
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    AST-targeted code editing MCP server with 28 surgical tools for structural edits across 11 languages. Built on tree-sitter, replaces brittle search/replace with byte-correct edits keyed by symbol names.
    28
    MIT

  • knocoph

    jagonzalr
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Transforms TypeScript and JavaScript codebases into a persistent code knowledge graph in SQLite, enabling structural codebase navigation via deterministic graph queries without reading source files.
    11
    MIT

  • uni-kb

    admin-init
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables parsing, indexing, and querying source code as structured knowledge, providing code exploration, spec generation, and migration tools via 20 MCP tools.
    MIT

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/oldrepublicwizard/cedarscript-mcp'

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