A
licenseB
qualityF
maintenanceA TypeScript-based MCP server that enables LLM agents to interact with Gel databases through natural language, providing tools to learn database schemas, validate and execute EdgeQL queries.
2
13
12
ISC
CouchDB MCP Server
servidor couchdb-mcp
Un servidor de protocolo de contexto de modelo para interactuar con CouchDB
Este es un servidor MCP basado en TypeScript que proporciona herramientas para gestionar bases de datos y documentos de CouchDB. Permite que los asistentes de IA interactúen con CouchDB mediante una interfaz sencilla.
Características
Herramientas
Herramientas básicas (todas las versiones de CouchDB)
createDatabase- Crea una nueva base de datos CouchDBToma
dbNamecomo parámetro obligatorioCrea la base de datos si no existe
listDatabases- Lista todas las bases de datos de CouchDBDevuelve una matriz de nombres de bases de datos
deleteDatabase- Eliminar una base de datos de CouchDBToma
dbNamecomo parámetro obligatorioElimina la base de datos especificada y todos sus documentos
createDocument- Crea un nuevo documento o actualiza un documento existente en una base de datosParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datosdocId: ID del documentodata: Datos del documento (objeto JSON)Para actualizaciones, incluya el campo
_revcon la revisión actual del documento
Devoluciones:
Para documentos nuevos: ID del documento y nueva revisión
Para actualizaciones: ID del documento y revisión actualizada
Detecta automáticamente si la operación es de creación o actualización según la presencia del campo
_rev
getDocument- Obtener un documento de una base de datosParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datosdocId: ID del documento
Devuelve el contenido del documento.
Herramientas de consulta de Mango (solo CouchDB 3.x+)
createMangoIndex- Crea un nuevo índice de MangoParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datosindexName: Nombre del índicefields: Matriz de nombres de campos para indexar
Crea un nuevo índice para realizar consultas eficientes
deleteMangoIndex- Eliminar un índice de MangoParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datosdesignDoc: Nombre del documento de diseñoindexName: Nombre del índice
Elimina un índice de Mango existente
listMangoIndexes: enumera todos los índices de Mango en una base de datosParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datos
Devuelve información sobre todos los índices de la base de datos.
findDocuments- Consulta documentos mediante la consulta MangoParámetros requeridos:
dbName: Nombre de la base de datosquery: objeto de consulta de Mango
Realiza una consulta utilizando la sintaxis de consulta Mango de CouchDB
Related MCP server: MCP Docs RAG Server
Soporte de versiones
El servidor detecta automáticamente la versión de CouchDB y habilita las funciones según corresponda:
Todas las versiones: Operaciones básicas de bases de datos y documentos
CouchDB 3.x+: Compatibilidad con consultas Mango (índices y consultas)
Configuración
El servidor requiere una URL de conexión y una versión de CouchDB. Estas se pueden proporcionar mediante variables de entorno:
COUCHDB_URL=http://username:password@localhost:5984
COUCHDB_VERSION=1.7.2
You can create a `.env` file in the project root with this configuration. If not provided, it defaults to `http://localhost:5984`.
## Development
Install dependencies:
```bash
npm installConstruir el servidor:
npm run buildPara desarrollo con reconstrucción automática:
npm run watchInstalación
Instalación mediante herrería
Para instalar couchdb-mcp-server para Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server --client claudePara utilizar con Claude Desktop, agregue la configuración del servidor:
En MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
En Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"couchdb-mcp-server": {
"command": "/path/to/couchdb-mcp-server/build/index.js",
"env": {
"COUCHDB_URL": "http://username:password@localhost:5984"
}
}
}
}Prerrequisitos
Node.js 14 o superior
Ejecución de una instancia de CouchDB
Credenciales de CouchDB adecuadas si la autenticación está habilitada
Depuración
Dado que los servidores MCP se comunican a través de stdio, la depuración puede ser complicada. Recomendamos usar el Inspector MCP , disponible como script de paquete:
npm run inspectorEl Inspector proporcionará una URL para acceder a las herramientas de depuración en su navegador.
Manejo de errores
El servidor incluye un manejo robusto de errores para escenarios comunes:
Nombres de bases de datos o ID de documentos no válidos
La base de datos ya existe/no existe
Problemas de conexión
Errores de autenticación
Datos de documento no válidos
Todos los errores se formatean correctamente y se devuelven a través del protocolo MCP con los códigos de error y mensajes apropiados.
Available Tools
5 toolscreateDatabaseC
Create a new CouchDB database
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dbName | Yes | Database name |
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 creates a database but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires admin privileges, what happens if the database already exists (e.g., error or overwrite), or any rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.
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 database creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or what the tool returns upon success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more completeness is needed to guide an agent effectively.
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, with 'dbName' documented as 'Database name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as naming conventions, length restrictions, or character constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.
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 ('Create') and resource ('a new CouchDB database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createDocument' or 'listDatabases', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes database creation from document creation.
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 'createDocument' or 'deleteDatabase'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or checking if a database already exists, nor any explicit exclusions or recommended contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
createDocumentC
Create a new document or update an existing document in a database
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dbName | Yes | Database name | |
| docId | Yes | Document ID | |
| data | Yes | Document data |
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. While it mentions the tool can both create and update documents, it doesn't specify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what permissions are required, whether operations are idempotent, or what happens on conflicts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's dual functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.
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?
For a document creation/update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens when creating versus updating, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. Given the mutation nature and complexity of the operation, more contextual information is needed.
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, so all three parameters (dbName, docId, data) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as format requirements for docId or constraints on data structure. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 specific verbs ('create' and 'update') and resource ('document in a database'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createDatabase' or 'getDocument', which would require more specific differentiation.
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 'createDatabase' for creating databases or 'getDocument' for retrieving documents. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deleteDatabaseC
Delete a CouchDB database
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dbName | Yes | Database name to delete |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to contained documents, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.
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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success/failure responses), doesn't warn about irreversible data loss, and doesn't provide context about the CouchDB environment. For a tool that permanently removes resources, this lacks critical completeness.
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% (the single parameter 'dbName' is fully described in the schema as 'Database name to delete'). The description doesn't add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a CouchDB database'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'createDatabase' or 'listDatabases', but the verb 'Delete' inherently differentiates it from creation and listing operations.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible data loss), or relationships to sibling tools like 'createDatabase' for recreation or 'listDatabases' for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
getDocumentC
Get a document from a database
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dbName | Yes | Database name | |
| docId | Yes | Document ID |
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 a document but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the document doesn't exist), response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation in a database context, where such information is crucial for safe usage.
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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information, achieving optimal 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 complexity of database operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases, return values, or security requirements, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for safe and informed tool invocation in this context.
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, with clear documentation for both parameters ('dbName' and 'docId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here as the description doesn't compensate with extra param details.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a document from a database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createDocument' and 'deleteDatabase' by specifying retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'listDatabases' in terms of scope (single document vs. listing databases), 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 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 an existing database and document), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'listDatabases' for broader queries. This leaves the agent with minimal 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.
listDatabasesB
List all CouchDB databases
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. 'List all' implies completeness but doesn't guarantee it.
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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality.
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?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of database names? objects with metadata?), potential limitations, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about the return format and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.
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 resource ('all CouchDB databases'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getDocument' or 'createDatabase' beyond the obvious scope difference, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'getDocument' for retrieving specific database information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions: createDatabase, deleteDatabase, and listDatabases handle database-level operations, while createDocument and getDocument handle document-level operations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., createDatabase, getDocument) using camelCase throughout. The naming is predictable and uniform across all five tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for basic CouchDB operations, covering database and document management without being overly sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a clear and necessary function.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core CRUD operations for databases (create, delete, list) and documents (create, get), but lacks document deletion and update tools, which are common in database workflows. This minor gap might require workarounds but does not severely hinder functionality.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
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
- mcpOAuthcom.gibsonai
GibsonAI MCP server: manage your databases with natural language
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceA TypeScript MCP server that allows querying documents using LLMs with context from locally stored repositories and text files through a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) system.417
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceA TypeScript-based MCP server that implements a simple notes system, allowing users to create, access, and generate summaries of text notes via URIs and tools.12188MIT
- -licenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceA TypeScript MCP server that enables AI assistants to create, manage, and manipulate 'crystals' - structured data containers for storing complex analysis, code, and knowledge that can be exported and reimported across different AI conversations.
Appeared in Searches
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/robertoamoreno/couchdb-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server