Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
psaboia

MCP Server Playground

by psaboia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

MCP 服务器游乐场

铁匠徽章

此代码库是一个使用 TypeScript 构建 MCP 服务器的实验平台。它是构建 MCP 服务器教程和视频的个性化版本，旨在作为学习资源和测试与 Calude Desktop 和 Cursor IDE 集成的平台。

背景

该项目基于以下材料：

原始教程提供了基础，我对其进行了扩展。除了教程中的示例之外，我还计划添加其他工具和功能，以将这段代码发展成为一个强大的 MCP 服务器实验平台。

Related MCP server: mcp-boilerplate

特征

  • **基于 TypeScript 的服务器：**利用 TypeScript 实现更好的结构和错误检查。

  • **模块化设计：**易于通过新命令、功能和集成进行扩展。

  • **集成就绪：**设计用于与 Calude Desktop 和 Cursor IDE 配合使用，以改善开发体验。

  • **可扩展的游乐场：**一个沙盒环境，用于试验教程示例之外的其他工具和修改。

入门

先决条件

  • Node.js（v12 或更高版本）

  • npm（或 Yarn，根据您的偏好）

  • TypeScript（如果未全局安装）

通过 Smithery 安装

要通过Smithery自动为 Claude Desktop 安装 MCP Server Playground：

npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-server-playground --client claude

安装

  1. 克隆存储库：

    git clone <repo_url>
cd mcp-server-playground

  2. 安装依赖项：

    npm install

  3. 构建项目：

    npm run build

配置

该项目使用环境变量。请创建一个.env文件来设置您的配置选项。如果以后提供了示例文件 ( .env.example )，请将其用作模板。

发展

  • IDE 集成：

    • 设计用于与 Cursor IDE 和 Calude Desktop 顺利协作。

    • 利用这些 IDE 支持的内置工具和扩展来最大限度地提高生产力。

  • 扩展项目：

    • 随意添加新命令、集成或修改现有功能。

    • 服务器的模块化结构使得插入附加工具和功能变得容易。

项目结构

mcp-server-playground/
├── src/                # Source code directory
│   └── index.ts       # Main server implementation
├── build/             # Compiled JavaScript files
├── package.json       # Project dependencies and scripts
├── tsconfig.json     # TypeScript configuration
└── README.md         # Project documentation

可用脚本

  • npm run build - 编译 TypeScript 代码并设置适当的权限

  • npm run prepare运行构建脚本（对 git hooks 有用）

  • npm run watch - 监视 TypeScript 文件中的更改

  • npm run inspector - 运行 MCP 检查器工具

贡献

欢迎贡献！如果您有任何建议、改进或新的集成，请 fork 此代码库并创建包含您更改的拉取请求 (PR)。

参考

执照

该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。

笔记

本项目是一个沙盒环境，旨在测试 MCP 服务器的各种适配和集成。随着新工具和新理念的开发，我们将进行更新和扩展。

路线图

  • [ ] 实现教程示例之外的其他工具集成

  • [ ] 为每个工具添加全面的文档

  • [ ] 创建与 Calude Desktop 的示例集成

  • [ ] 开发用于 Cursor IDE 集成的自定义工具

  • [ ] 添加测试框架和示例

Available Tools

2 tools
calculate_sumB

Add two numbers together

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 the action ('Add') but does not cover traits like error handling, performance, or side effects. For a simple tool, this is a gap, though not severe, as addition is a basic operation with minimal behavioral complexity.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple addition with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, or output, making it incomplete for more nuanced agent decisions.

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 description mentions 'two numbers', which aligns with the two parameters 'a' and 'b' in the schema, but schema description coverage is 0%, so no details are provided in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the parameters are numbers for addition, but does not explain their roles or constraints beyond that.

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 'Add two numbers together' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as the only sibling is 'httpbin_json', which is unrelated, so differentiation is not needed but not explicitly addressed.

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 or in what context it should be applied. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with other tools, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

httpbin_jsonC

Returns data about slide show

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aNo

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
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 mentions 'Returns data', which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'slide show' refers to. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, making it borderline adequate in structure but not truly helpful.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how 'a' is used, or any context about slide shows, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively use the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter 'a' of type number with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'a' represents, how it relates to slide shows, or its purpose, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

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

The description states the tool 'Returns data about slide show', which provides a vague purpose without specifying what kind of data or what operation is performed. It doesn't clearly distinguish from the sibling tool 'calculate_sum', and while it's not a tautology (it adds 'about slide show'), it remains too general to be helpful for precise tool selection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate_sum' or any alternatives. The description implies it's for slide show data, but without context on when it's appropriate or what scenarios it addresses, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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 observedcalculate_sum
    • First observedhttpbin_json
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

C2.5/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: calculate_sum performs a mathematical addition operation, while httpbin_json returns data about a slide show. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed: calculate_sum uses a verb_noun pattern, but httpbin_json is more of a noun-based name with a prefix. While both are readable, they don't follow a consistent convention, which could cause minor confusion in a larger set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, this server feels thin and under-scoped for a 'Playground' purpose, which typically implies a broader set of utilities. The tools are too few to meaningfully explore or test MCP capabilities, suggesting an incomplete implementation.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a 'Playground' domain, which should offer diverse functionalities. There are obvious gaps, such as missing basic operations like subtraction, multiplication, or other HTTP-related tools, making it inadequate for comprehensive agent workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP Montano Server

    lucasmontano
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A TypeScript-based server project that can be integrated with Cursor IDE as an MCP (Model Control Protocol) server, enabling enhanced development capabilities.
    134
    -

  • mcp-boilerplate

    agiulucom42-del
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Production-ready template for building MCP servers with TypeScript, featuring example tools and resources, and Claude Desktop integration.
    1
    4 npm
    MIT

  • TS-MCP-Server

    rnsrashmika078
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A TypeScript template for building MCP servers, enabling developers to create custom tools for AI assistants like Claude.
    11 npm
    MIT

  • my-mcp-server

    junhang-dev
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A TypeScript MCP server boilerplate with example tools (calculator, greet) and resources (system info), ready for extension and integration with Cursor.
    -

Appeared in Searches