Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
pulumi

@pulumi/mcp-server

Official
by pulumi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Pulumi MCP 服务器

**注意：**此 MCP 服务器目前正在积极开发中。其 API（包括可用命令及其参数）尚处于实验阶段，可能会引入重大变更，恕不另行通知。如果您遇到错误或需要其他 Pulumi 命令的支持，请在GitHub上提交问题。

实现模型上下文协议(MCP) 的服务器，用于使用 Pulumi 自动化 API 和 Pulumi 云 API 与 Pulumi CLI 进行交互。

该软件包允许 MCP 客户端执行 Pulumi 操作，例如检索包信息、预览更改、部署更新和以编程方式检索堆栈输出，而无需在客户端环境中直接安装 Pulumi CLI。

用法

您的机器上必须安装 Pulumi CLI。

此软件包主要用于集成到可以使用 MCP 服务器作为 AI 工具的应用程序中。例如，以下是如何将 Pulumi MCP 服务器添加到 Claude 桌面的 MCP 配置文件中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulumi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@pulumi/mcp-server@latest","stdio"]
    }
  }
}

或者，如果您更喜欢使用带有服务器发送事件（SSE）而不是stdio的 HTTP ：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulumi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@pulumi/mcp-server@latest","sse"]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: mcp-perplexity

Docker容器

您还可以将 Pulumi MCP 服务器作为 Docker 容器运行。这种方法无需直接在主机上安装 Node.js 及其依赖包。

构建容器

构建容器：

docker build -t pulumi/mcp-server:latest .

与 MCP 客户端一起使用

要将容器化服务器与 MCP 客户端一起使用，您需要将客户端配置为使用 Docker 容器。例如，在 Claude 桌面的 MCP 配置中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulumi": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "pulumi/mcp-server:latest", "stdio"]
    }
  }
}

通过 HTTP (SSE) 与 MCP 客户端一起使用

要通过 HTTP (SSE) 将容器化服务器与 MCP 客户端一起使用，可以使用以下命令运行容器：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulumi": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "-p", "3000:3000", "pulumi/mcp-server:latest", "sse"]
    }
  }
}

对于需要访问本地 Pulumi 项目的 Pulumi 操作，您需要挂载相应的目录。例如，如果您的 Pulumi 项目位于~/projects/my-pulumi-app中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pulumi": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "-v", "~/projects/my-pulumi-app:/app/project", "pulumi/mcp-server:latest"]
    }
  }
}

然后，当使用 MCP 工具时，您将在请求中将项目目录引用为/app/project 。

可用命令

服务器公开以下 Pulumi 操作的处理程序，可通过 MCP 请求调用：

  • preview ：在指定的堆栈上运行pulumi preview 。

    • workDir （字符串，必需）：包含Pulumi.yaml项目文件的工作目录。

    • stackName （字符串，可选）：要操作的堆栈名称（默认为“dev”）。

  • up ：运行pulumi up来部署指定堆栈的更改。

    • workDir （字符串，必需）：包含Pulumi.yaml项目文件的工作目录。

    • stackName （字符串，可选）：要操作的堆栈名称（默认为“dev”）。

  • stack-output ：成功部署后从指定堆栈检索输出。

    • workDir （字符串，必需）：包含Pulumi.yaml项目文件的工作目录。

    • stackName （字符串，可选）：要从中检索输出的堆栈名称（默认为“dev”）。

    • outputName （字符串，可选）：要检索的特定堆栈输出名称。如果省略，则返回堆栈的所有输出。

  • get-resource ：返回有关特定 Pulumi Registry 资源的信息，包括其输入和输出。

    • provider （字符串，必需）：Git 托管组件的云提供商（例如“aws”、“azure”、“gcp”、“random”）或github.com/org/repo 。

    • module （字符串，可选）：要查询的模块（例如，“s3”，“ec2”，“lambda”）。

    • resource （字符串，必需）：资源类型名称（例如，“Bucket”，“Function”，“Instance”）。

  • list-resources ：列出 Pulumi 提供程序包中的可用资源，可选择按模块进行过滤。

    • provider （字符串，必需）：Git 托管组件的云提供商（例如“aws”、“azure”、“gcp”、“random”）或github.com/org/repo 。

    • module （字符串，可选）：要过滤的模块（例如，“s3”，“ec2”，“lambda”）。

发展

  1. 克隆存储库。

  2. 安装依赖项： make ensure

  3. 构建项目： make build

  4. 测试项目： make test

执照

本项目遵循 Apache-2.0 许可证。详情请参阅许可证文件。

Available Tools

5 tools
pulumi-cli-previewC

Run pulumi preview for a given project and stack

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stackNameNoThe associated stack name. Defaults to 'dev'.
workDirYesThe working directory of the program.

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 'preview' but doesn't clarify that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation that simulates changes without applying them, nor does it address potential side effects like network calls, authentication needs, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Run pulumi preview') and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 a CLI tool for infrastructure previews, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain critical aspects like the non-destructive nature of previews, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output entails (e.g., a summary of planned changes). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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, clearly documenting both parameters ('stackName' and 'workDir') with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses these for the preview, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any schema gaps.

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 ('Run pulumi preview') and specifies the target ('for a given project and stack'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pulumi-cli-up' (which applies changes) or 'pulumi-cli-stack-output' (which retrieves outputs), leaving room for ambiguity in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pulumi-cli-up' for applying changes or 'pulumi-cli-stack-output' for viewing outputs. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a Pulumi project setup) or typical use cases (e.g., before applying infrastructure changes), offering only a basic functional statement.

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

pulumi-cli-stack-outputC

Get the output value(s) of a given stack

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputNameNoThe specific stack output name to retrieve.
stackNameNoThe associated stack name. Defaults to 'dev'.
workDirYesThe working directory of the program.

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 states the tool retrieves output values but fails to mention critical behaviors like whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, if it returns structured data, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. This earns a score of 5 for conciseness.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values look like, how outputs are formatted, or any dependencies like stack state. For a tool that retrieves data, this lack of output information and behavioral context results in a score of 2.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, so this scores a 3.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get the output value(s) of a given stack,' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('output value(s) of a given stack'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pulumi-cli-preview' or 'pulumi-cli-up' by focusing on retrieval rather than deployment actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read operations like 'pulumi-registry-get-resource,' keeping it at a 4.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an initialized stack, or comparisons to other tools like 'pulumi-registry-get-resource' for different resource types. This absence of usage instructions results in a score of 2.

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

pulumi-cli-upC

Run pulumi up for a given project and stack

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stackNameNoThe associated stack name. Defaults to 'dev'.
workDirYesThe working directory of the program.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Run pulumi up') which implies a write/mutation operation that applies infrastructure changes, but fails to mention critical traits like potential destructive effects, authentication requirements, execution time, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing essential information about the action and target.

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 a CLI tool that likely performs infrastructure deployments (a mutation operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it interacts with the Pulumi ecosystem, making it inadequate for safe and effective 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 ('stackName' and 'workDir') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'workDir' relates to the Pulumi project or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Run pulumi up') and specifies the target ('for a given project and stack'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pulumi-cli-preview' (which likely shows changes without applying them), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a Pulumi project setup), contrast with 'pulumi-cli-preview' for dry runs, or specify scenarios like deploying infrastructure changes. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among siblings.

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

pulumi-registry-get-resourceB

Get information about a specific resource from the Pulumi Registry

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleNoThe module to query (e.g., 's3', 'ec2', 'lambda'). Optional for smaller providers, will be 'index by default.
providerYesThe cloud provider (e.g., 'aws', 'azure', 'gcp', 'random') or github.com/org/repo for Git-hosted components
resourceYesThe resource type to query (e.g., 'Bucket', 'Function', 'Instance')

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't specify what happens on errors (e.g., if the resource doesn't exist), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get information about'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the target ('a specific resource') and source ('from the Pulumi Registry').

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 a resource lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., documentation, properties, examples), error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely interacts with an external registry, more context is needed to guide effective use by an agent.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'provider' as the cloud provider, 'resource' as the resource type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid inputs or interdependencies between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 information about') and resource ('a specific resource from the Pulumi Registry'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pulumi-registry-list-resources' by specifying retrieval of a single resource rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of information is retrieved (e.g., documentation, schema, metadata), which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing information about a specific Pulumi resource, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pulumi-registry-list-resources' or the CLI tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

pulumi-registry-list-resourcesB

List all resource types for a given provider and module

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleNoOptional module to filter by (e.g., 's3', 'ec2', 'lambda')
providerYesThe cloud provider (e.g., 'aws', 'azure', 'gcp', 'random') or github.com/org/repo for Git-hosted components

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 states the tool lists resources but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a read operation without annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This exemplifies optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in completeness for operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'provider and module' but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and target ('all resource types'), specifying the scope ('for a given provider and module'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pulumi-registry-get-resource' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving details, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like CLI tools. This makes it clear but not fully differentiated from all alternatives.

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 scenarios for listing resources, prerequisites, or exclusions, and offers no comparison with sibling tools like 'pulumi-cli-preview' or 'pulumi-registry-get-resource'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedpulumi-cli-preview
    • First observedpulumi-cli-stack-output
    • First observedpulumi-cli-up
    • First observedpulumi-registry-get-resource
    • First observedpulumi-registry-list-resources
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: pulumi-cli-preview, pulumi-cli-up, and pulumi-cli-stack-output handle different CLI operations for project/stack management, while pulumi-registry-get-resource and pulumi-registry-list-resources focus on distinct registry lookup tasks. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: they start with 'pulumi-' followed by a hyphen-separated domain (cli or registry) and a specific action (e.g., preview, up, get-resource). This predictable structure enhances readability and agent usability without any deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 5 tools, the count is reasonable and well-scoped for a Pulumi MCP server, covering core CLI operations and registry lookups. It's slightly lean but not insufficient, as each tool earns its place; minor additions like stack management or config tools could enhance it, but it's not a significant gap.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers key Pulumi workflows: preview, up, and stack outputs for deployment, plus registry resource lookups. Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for stack management (e.g., create/delete) or config operations, but agents can likely work around these with the provided tools for basic infrastructure-as-code tasks.

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers