Qwen MCP Server
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Qwen MCP ServerShow available Qwen models"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Qwen MCP Server
Qwen AI Chat Guide for Qwen3.6-Plus, Flash, and 1M Context
A Model Context Protocol server that exposes the canonical Qwen knowledge surface — models, prompts, and chat workflows, pricing, FAQ, official links — to MCP-compatible AI clients such as Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and Continue. Read-only, no API keys, no quota, ~50 ms cold start.
Official website: https://qwenchat.online
💬 About Qwen
Qwen Chat (qwenchat.online) is a browser-based workspace for interacting with Alibaba's Qwen3 family of language models. The site provides direct chat access alongside a structured evaluation environment where users can test model capabilities across distinct task categories — code, documents, visual inputs, and web generation — without setting up local infrastructure. It is designed for people who want to move quickly from curiosity to practical assessment: load a file, paste a prompt, and observe how the model handles real work rather than toy examples.
Related MCP server: Model Hub MCP
Key Features
1M context window — carry multiple long files, research documents, or codebases in a single request without manually summarising between steps.
Model lane comparison — switch between Qwen3 Plus and Flash variants through the same interface to compare speed and quality tradeoffs on the same input.
OpenAI and Anthropic API compatibility — the underlying models expose both API surfaces, so existing tooling, SDKs, and prompt templates migrate with minimal changes.
Benchmark transparency — the site surfaces specific third-party scores (Terminal-Bench 2.0, OmniDocBench 1.5) rather than abstract capability claims, letting users calibrate expectations before committing to integration.
Multimodal input support — the chat accepts screenshots, PDFs, and diagrams, enabling visual reasoning tasks such as UI analysis, screen grounding, and document layout parsing.
Preset task examples — the interface ships with ready-made prompts covering code review, document analysis, and web prototyping, reducing the setup time needed to start a meaningful test.
Use Cases
Code and repository work — reviewing diffs, diagnosing build failures, or walking through a repository repair task using the extended context window to hold multiple files at once.
Long-document analysis — uploading policy documents, research papers, or technical specifications and asking structured questions without hitting context limits.
Visual and UI tasks — pasting screenshots for layout analysis, accessibility review, or screen grounding where the model identifies interactive elements by position.
Rapid web prototyping — generating functional HTML or component scaffolding from a brief description and iterating in the same session.
API migration evaluation — testing whether Qwen models can serve as a drop-in replacement for OpenAI or Anthropic endpoints in an existing workflow before switching production traffic.
Who Is It For
Qwen Chat is aimed primarily at developers, technical leads, and product teams who are already using language models in their day-to-day work and want to evaluate whether Qwen3 fits their stack. It suits teams that handle long documents or large codebases and need a context window beyond what standard tiers offer. It is also relevant to engineers assessing API compatibility before committing to a migration — the site provides enough structured evidence to make that call without requiring a full integration first. Individual developers building side projects or prototypes who want a capable model accessible directly from the browser will find it practical as well.
Tools
list_models
Return the canonical list of chat models exposed on the site, with capability notes. (Qwen)
Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.
get_pricing
Return the canonical pricing entry point for Qwen.
Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.
get_official_links
Return the canonical list of official links for Qwen (website, support, docs when available).
Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.
Resources
site://chat/models— Supported chat models and capability notes.site://chat/pricing— Canonical pricing entry point.site://chat/faq— Short FAQ generated from public site metadata.site://chat/links— Canonical URLs to share with users.
Prompts
tell_me_about_chat
Summarize what the site is, who it's for, and how it works. — Qwen
start_chat_session_chat
Open a chat-evaluation session against the site's models, with sensible defaults. — Qwen
Installation
Install via Smithery
npx -y @smithery/cli install chat-mcp --client claude(Replace claude with cursor, windsurf, or continue for those clients.)
Install from source
git clone https://github.com/rocnubie/chat-mcp.git
cd chat-mcp
pnpm installThen add to your MCP client config (claude_desktop_config.json for Claude Desktop, mcp.json for Cursor / Windsurf / Continue):
{
"mcpServers": {
"chat-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/chat-mcp/src/index.mjs"
]
}
}
}Debug with MCP Inspector
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node src/index.mjsOfficial Links
Website: https://qwenchat.online
Pricing: https://qwenchat.online/pricing
GitHub: https://github.com/Rocniubi/MSA
Support: support@qwenchat.online
Development
pnpm install
pnpm start # run the server over stdioLicense
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolsget_official_linksB
Return the canonical list of official links for Qwen (website, support, docs when available).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the return action but does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, data freshness, or any limitations beyond 'when available'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly enhanced with usage context, but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. Lacks details on return format or additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the specific resource ('canonical list of official links for Qwen'), distinguishing it from sibling tools list_models and get_pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pricingB
Return the canonical pricing entry point for Qwen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it returns an entry point, lacking details on authentication, error conditions, or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from additional context like what the pricing entry point is.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on return type or content; with no output schema, agent cannot infer what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema, so description need not compensate. Baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses verb 'Return' and specifies resource 'canonical pricing entry point for Qwen', distinguishing from sibling tools like list_models and get_official_links. However, 'entry point' is somewhat vague; it could be a URL or a document.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 sibling tools; the description does not mention any preconditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_modelsA
Return the canonical list of chat models exposed on the site, with capability notes. (Qwen)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation returning a list, but lacks details on caching, error behavior, or output constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools covering pricing and links, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose. However, it could mention if models include metadata or if the list is exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. It adds value by noting 'capability notes', clarifying the output content. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the canonical list of chat models with capability notes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_official_links which deal with pricing and links respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the tool names provide some implicit context, no direct guidance on usage or exclusion is provided.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
get_official_links - First observed
get_pricing - First observed
list_models
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing models, getting pricing, and obtaining official links. There is no functional overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_models, get_pricing, get_official_links), which is predictable and aids in understanding.
With 3 tools, the server is lean but not too sparse for its informational purpose. The count seems appropriate for providing canonical lists and pricing without being overwhelming.
The tools cover basic informational needs (models, pricing, links) but lack operations like model details or interactive features. The surface is complete for a simple reference server, but minor gaps exist for advanced use cases.
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
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for GLM chat completions using Zhipu AI models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
Search your AI chat history (ChatGPT, Claude, Codex) from any MCP client. Remote, private, read-only
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that uses Groq's API to expose raw chain-of-thought tokens from Qwen's qwq model, enabling LLMs to think step-by-step before responding.112-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that retrieves and provides AI model information from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google through a unified interface.322MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMulti-model MCP server enabling code generation, visual analysis, and complex reasoning via Qwen3 models.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA read-only MCP server that exposes Meigen AI's image generation styles, pricing, FAQ, and official links to AI clients.3MIT
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/rocnubie/chat-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server