Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
sach999

Git Spice Help MCP Server

by sach999
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

游标 MCP 服务器

该存储库包含一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现，它提供了在 Cursor IDE 中搜索 git-spice 文档的工具。

特征

  • 通过 MCP 协议与 Cursor IDE 集成

  • 实时 git-spice 文档搜索

  • 简单高效的文档解析

Related MCP server: Cursor DB MCP Server

先决条件

  • Node.js（v16 或更高版本）

  • 游标 IDE

  • npm 或 yarn 包管理器

安装

  1. 克隆此存储库：

git clone <repository-url>
cd <repository-name>

  1. 安装依赖项：

npm install
# or
yarn install

  1. 构建项目：

npm run build
# or
yarn build

配置

服务器配置

该服务器预先配置了以下功能：

  • 工具能力

  • 资源能力

  • 提示功能

游标 IDE 配置

  1. 打开 Cursor IDE 设置：

    • 在 macOS 上： Cmd + ,

    • 在 Windows/Linux 上： Ctrl + ,

  2. 导航至“扩展”部分

  3. 找到 MCP 服务器设置并添加新的服务器配置：

{
  "name": "Git Spice MCP Server",
  "command": "node",
  "args": ["dist/index.js"],
  "cwd": "/path/to/your/project"
}

  1. 保存设置并刷新MCP

用法

在代理模式下使用 Cursor 时，MCP 服务器将被自动检测，并且 git-spice 文档搜索工具将可用。当查询相关时，代理会提示您使用该工具。

项目结构

  • src/index.ts ：主服务器实现

  • src/ ：源代码目录

  • dist/ ：编译输出目录

致谢

Available Tools

1 tool
get-world-weatherC

获取全世界的天气预报

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latitudeYes纬度
longitudeYes经度

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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a weather API tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality immediately apparent.

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 (weather API with geographic coordinates), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what weather data is returned, units of measurement, temporal scope of forecasts, or any behavioral characteristics. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for effective tool 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 schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters (latitude, longitude) well-documented in the schema with ranges and descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取全世界的天气预报' (Get worldwide weather forecast) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('天气预报' - weather forecast). It distinguishes itself by specifying '全世界的' (worldwide), indicating global coverage. However, with no sibling tools, differentiation from alternatives isn't demonstrated, preventing 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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or limitations. This lack of usage guidance is a significant gap for effective 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. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • Changedget-world-weather1 field changed
      • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
        Removed value: -false
  2. 1 tool update
    • First observedget-world-weather
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

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as fetching worldwide weather forecasts, making it impossible to confuse with other tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'get-world-weather' follows a clear verb-noun pattern, which would be consistent if more tools existed.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and scope. While weather-related servers could have more tools (e.g., for specific locations, forecasts, or historical data), one tool feels thin and underdeveloped for a comprehensive weather service.

Completeness2/5

The server's domain appears to be weather-related, but with only one tool for worldwide weather, there are significant gaps. Missing operations include getting weather for specific locations, historical data, forecasts by type (e.g., hourly/daily), or alerts, making the surface incomplete for typical weather use cases.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • git MCP server by modelcontextprotocol

    git MCP serverofficial

    modelcontextprotocol
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server for Git repository interaction and automation. This server provides tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories via Large Language Models.
    12
    57,038 PyPI
    91,276
    MIT
  • CodeAlive MCP by CodeAlive-AI

    CodeAlive MCPofficial

    CodeAlive-AI
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that enhances AI agents by providing deep semantic understanding of codebases, enabling more intelligent interactions through advanced code search and contextual awareness.
    91
    MIT
  • Contextual MCP Server by ContextualAI

    Contextual MCP Serverofficial

    ContextualAI
    F
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides Retrieval-Augmented Generation capabilities using Contextual AI, enabling AI interfaces like Cursor IDE and Claude Desktop to query domain-specific knowledge with context-aware responses and source citations.
    1
    21
    -

Appeared in Searches