MCP 클라이언트 테스트를 위한 간단한 echo_tool 갖춘 간단한 echo MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다. 새로운 MCP 서버를 위한 템플릿으로도 매우 유용합니다.
uv를 설치하고 uvx 사용하여 MCP 구성에 서버를 추가합니다.
지엑스피1
또는 저장소를 복제하고 디렉토리와 함께 uv 사용합니다.
{
"name": "echo-mcp-server-for-testing",
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"path/to/root/dir/",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"env": {
"SECRET_KEY": "123456789"
}
}Related MCP server: @profullstack/mcp-server
저장소를 복제하고 mcp-client-for-testing을 사용하여 서버 도구를 테스트합니다.
uvx mcp-client-for-testing \
--config '
[
{
"name": "echo-mcp-server-for-testing",
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"path/to/root/dir/",
"run",
"main.py"
],
"env": {
"SECRET_KEY": "123456789"
}
}
]
' \
--tool_call '{"name": "echo_tool", "arguments": {"message": "Hello, world!"}}'코드는 ruff로 포맷되고 린트되었습니다.
uv run ruff format
uv run ruff check --fixuv를 사용하여 패키지를 빌드합니다.
uv build패키지의 새 버전을 PyPI에 릴리스하려면 새 Git 태그를 만들고 푸시하세요.
메인 브랜치를 체크아웃하고 최신 버전을 받으세요:
git checkout main
git pull origin main
git describe --tags새로운 Git 태그를 만들고 푸시합니다.
git tag v0.2.0
git push origin v0.2.0GitHub Actions 워크플로는 새 태그가 푸시되면 패키지를 자동으로 빌드하고 PyPI에 게시합니다. Python 패키지 버전 번호는 Git 태그에서 직접 파생됩니다.
이 프로젝트는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 라이선스가 부여됩니다. 자세한 내용은 라이선스 파일을 참조하세요.
Echo a message as a tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
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. The description only states 'Echo a message as a tool' which reveals nothing about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read operation, a transformation, a test utility, or something else. It doesn't mention any side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'echo' means in practical terms.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of meaningful content - it's brief but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameter means, or what to expect as output. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.
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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information about the 'message' parameter. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, offering no compensation for the schema's lack of documentation. The description should explain what kind of message is expected or what the parameter represents, but it remains completely silent on this.
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 'Echo a message as a tool' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'echo_tool' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses the verb 'echo' which matches the name, but doesn't explain what 'echo' means in this context or what resource is being acted upon. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, but the description remains vague about the actual function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it's designed for, or any prerequisites. With no sibling tools, there's no need to differentiate from alternatives, but the description doesn't indicate any context for usage. It's a minimal statement that offers no practical guidance to an agent.
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.
echo_toolScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'echo_tool' has a clear and distinct purpose that cannot be mistaken for any other tool in this set.
The naming is perfectly consistent as there is only one tool following the verb_noun pattern 'echo_tool'. No other naming conventions exist to create inconsistency.
A single tool is too few for most practical server purposes, making the set feel thin and limited. While it might be appropriate for a minimal demo or test server, it lacks the depth expected for typical MCP server functionality.
For a simple echo functionality, the single tool covers the basic operation. However, there are no related operations (e.g., variations like echo_reverse or echo_log) that might be expected in a more complete echo service, leaving minor gaps.
Ovanek MCP: Model Context Protocol server for Ovanek platform tools; writes are dry-run by default.
Minimal streamable HTTP MCP server used for owned-account registry connectivity tests.
MCP server to assist with JxBrowser development.
A simple MCP server built with FastMCP and python
