Skip to main content
Glama
pwesolowski

Pioter MCP Server

by pwesolowski
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Pioter MCP Server

Pioter is a "Best Practices Oracle" MCP server that provides dynamic advice, checklists, and patterns for various software technologies.

Features

  • Technology Awareness: Automatically detects the technology from your query (e.g., React, Kubernetes, Python).

  • Best Practices: Provides curated best practices and common mistakes.

  • Checklists: Offers basic and advanced checklists for reviews.

  • Configurable: Easily extendable via JSON configuration files.

Related MCP server: Best Practices MCP Server

Installation

  1. Clone the repository:

    git clone <repository-url>
cd piotermcp

  2. Install dependencies:

    npm install

  3. Build the project:

    npm run build

Configuration

To use this server with Antigravity or any MCP client (like Claude Desktop), add the following to your MCP configuration file:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pioter": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/Users/piotr/workspace/piotermcp/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Running Locally

You can run the server locally for testing using the provided script:

./run_server.sh

Note: The server communicates via stdio (standard iasnput/output). It is designed to be run by an MCP client, not directly by a human in the terminal, although you will see it start up.

Usage

Ask Pioter about best practices, refactoring, or architecture.

Examples:

  • "What are the best practices for React hooks?"

  • "Give me a security checklist for Kubernetes."

  • "How should I structure a Python FastAPI project?"

Tools

  • refactor_advice: Get refactoring advice.

  • technology_best_practices: Get general best practices.

  • testing_guidelines: Get testing strategies.

  • architecture_patterns: Get architectural recommendations.

  • ops_deployment_principles: Get DevOps and deployment advice.

  • security_checklist: Get security checklists.

Available Tools

2 tools
refactor_adviceB

Get refactoring advice for a specific technology and query.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
technologyYesThe technology to provide advice for. Supported: React, Kubernetes
queryYesCode snippet or description to refactor

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 tool 'Get refactoring advice' but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's traits beyond basic functionality.

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: 'Get refactoring advice for a specific technology and query.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but for a query-based tool, this might be acceptable if the behavior were clearer. It meets the minimum viable standard with clear gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for 'technology'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get refactoring advice for a specific technology and query.' It specifies the verb ('Get refactoring advice') and resource ('for a specific technology and query'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'technology_best_practices', which might cover similar ground, 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'technology_best_practices' or any other contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit direction, leaving the agent to infer based on the 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.

technology_best_practicesB

Get best practices for a specific technology.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
technologyYesThe technology to get best practices for. Supported: React, Kubernetes
queryNoSpecific topic or question (optional)

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 retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured list, text). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial to fully guide the 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters, including an enum for 'technology' and optionality for 'query'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only echoes the schema's purpose without providing additional context like example queries or usage scenarios. This meets 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('best practices for a specific technology'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'refactor_advice', which might also provide technology-related guidance, 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 alternatives like 'refactor_advice'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The two tools have overlapping purposes as both provide guidance for technologies, which could cause confusion. 'refactor_advice' focuses on code improvement, while 'technology_best_practices' covers broader practices, but the descriptions are vague enough that an agent might misselect when seeking general advice. Some overlap exists, but the distinct keywords 'refactor' and 'best practices' help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear noun_verb structure (e.g., 'refactor_advice', 'technology_best_practices'). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, making the naming predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for a general-purpose 'Pioter MCP Server', suggesting it might not cover enough functionality. This low count could limit agent capabilities, as typical servers in this domain would offer more varied operations. It's borderline too few for effective use.

Completeness2/5

Given the inferred domain of technology guidance, there are significant gaps in the tool surface. The server lacks basic operations like searching, listing technologies, or providing examples, and there's no coverage for related tasks such as troubleshooting or implementation steps. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures when handling broader queries.

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

  • CodeBase Optimizer

    liadgez
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides comprehensive codebase analysis including project structure evaluation, cross-language duplicate detection, microservices validation, and configuration optimization with AI-powered pattern learning that generates actionable improvement reports.
    MIT

  • mcp-zen-of-languages

    Anselmoo
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants and developers to analyze code for language-specific best practices and idiomatic patterns across programming languages, CI automation, and configuration formats.
    16
    2
    MIT

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/pwesolowski/pioter-mcp'

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