Skip to main content
Glama
GuilhermeTavares13

MCP Chat Server

by GuilhermeTavares13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

MCP Chat

MCP Chat is a command-line interface application that enables interactive chat capabilities with AI models through the Anthropic API. The application supports document retrieval, command-based prompts, and extensible tool integrations via the MCP (Model Control Protocol) architecture.

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.9+

  • Anthropic API Key

Related MCP server: mcp-doc-chat

Setup

Step 1: Configure the environment variables

  1. Create or edit the .env file in the project root and verify that the following variables are set correctly:

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=""  # Enter your Anthropic API secret key

Step 2: Install dependencies

Option 1: Setup with uv (Recommended)

uv is a fast Python package installer and resolver.

  1. Install uv, if not already installed:

pip install uv

  1. Create and activate a virtual environment:

uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate

  1. Install dependencies:

uv pip install -e .

  1. Run the project

uv run main.py

Option 2: Setup without uv

  1. Create and activate a virtual environment:

python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate

  1. Install dependencies:

pip install anthropic python-dotenv prompt-toolkit "mcp[cli]==1.8.0"

  1. Run the project

python main.py

Usage

Basic Interaction

Simply type your message and press Enter to chat with the model.

Document Retrieval

Use the @ symbol followed by a document ID to include document content in your query:

> Tell me about @deposition.md

Commands

Use the / prefix to execute commands defined in the MCP server:

> /summarize deposition.md

Commands will auto-complete when you press Tab.

Development

Adding New Documents

Edit the mcp_server.py file to add new documents to the docs dictionary.

Implementing MCP Features

To fully implement the MCP features:

  1. Complete the TODOs in mcp_server.py

  2. Implement the missing functionality in mcp_client.py

Linting and Typing Check

There are no lint or type checks implemented.

Available Tools

2 tools
edit_documentsB

Edit a document by replacing a string in the documents content with a new string

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesId of the document to edit
old_strYesThe text to replace. Must match exactly, including whitespace
new_strYesThe new text to insert in place of the old text

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'edit' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, behavior if old_str not found, or any side effects.

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?

Extremely short (one sentence), but lacks structure like explicit resource identification or behavioral notes. Conciseness is positive but insufficient content detracts.

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?

No output schema, mutation tool with 3 required params. Missing critical details: return value, error handling, idempotency, or edge cases (e.g., multiple occurrences).

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions are adequate. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., format, length limits, examples). Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb 'Edit' and resource 'document', and replacing a string distinguishes it from sibling 'read_doc_contents' which only reads.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool exists but no differentiation in usage context.

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

read_doc_contentsA

Read the contents of a document and return it as a string.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesId of the document to read

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output behavior ('return it as a string'), but does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens when the document does not exist. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys both the operation and the return format.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description is largely complete for a read operation, especially since it explicitly states the return type. It could be slightly stronger with error or permission context, but nothing essential is missing for basic 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 already fully documents the only parameter, doc_id, as 'Id of the document to read', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the contents of a document' and explicitly notes the return type as a string. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'edit_document', which implies modification rather than reading.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The verb 'Read' establishes a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and its contrast with 'edit_document' implies read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative.

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 updatesv0.1.0
    • First observededit_documents
    • First observedread_doc_contents
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

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one reads document contents, the other edits them. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the verb_noun pattern (edit_documents, read_doc_contents), making them predictable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a 'chat server' or even a document editor. Typically, such a server would need 3-15 tools to be useful.

Completeness2/5

For a document editing server, basic operations like create, delete, and list are missing. The server name implies chat functionality, which is completely absent.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers