Shadcn Space MCP
shadcnspace-mcp
Официальный сервер протокола контекста модели (MCP) для Shadcn Space.
Этот MCP-сервер позволяет IDE и агентам с поддержкой ИИ находить, искать и устанавливать UI-блоки Shadcn Space напрямую в ваши проекты — без необходимости копирования и вставки.
Установка конфигурации MCP
npx shadcnspace-cli install <client>Поддерживаемые клиенты
[x] cursor
[x] windsurf
[x] claude
[x] cline
[x] antigravity
Related MCP server: shadcn-vue-mcp
Ручная установка
Добавьте в конфигурацию MCP вашей IDE:
{
"mcpServers": {
"shadcnspace-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "shadcnspace-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}Для получения дополнительной информации посетите нашу документацию Как использовать MCP-сервер
Доступные инструменты
Сервер предоставляет следующие инструменты, вызываемые через MCP:
Название инструмента | Описание |
| Предоставляет полный список всех блоков shadcnspace. |
| Предоставляет полный список всех компонентов shadcnspace. |
| Возвращает официальную команду установки для конкретного блока Shadcn Space. |
| Поиск блоков Shadcn Space по ключевым словам или тегам. |
| Перечисляет все блоки, которые в данный момент установлены в проекте, и получает их файлы. |
Доступные промпты
Сервер предоставляет следующие промпты, вызываемые через MCP:
Промпт/Команда | Описание |
| Поиск конкретного UI-блока по названию. |
| Создание нового UI-блока с использованием наших существующих блоков. |
Пример использования
После настройки вы можете задавать вопросы, например:
"List all available UI blocks"
"Give me the code for the accordion-01 component"
"Create a landing page for a coffee shop using a hero-01 block, a 3-column feature grid, and a dark-themed footer."
Авторы
Создано shadcnspace.
Available Tools
5 toolsgetBlockInstallGet Block Installation CommandA
Returns the official installation command for a specific Shadcn Space block. Agents can use this to add a block to the project automatically before customizing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The exact name of the block, e.g., 'hero-01'. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only (returns a command) and adds context about adding a block. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and usage context is in the second. Every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations, few siblings), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter expects. No critical information is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name', providing an example. The description adds 'for a specific Shadcn Space block' but no further details beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.
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 it returns the installation command for a block and is used to add a block before customizing. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'installation command' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings such as listBlocks (listing) and listInstalledBlocks (listing installed) by focusing on the command retrieval action.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Agents can use this to add a block to the project automatically before customizing it.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not include when not to use or alternatives, though siblings implicitly cover other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listBlocksList All BlocksA
Provides a complete list of all Shadcn Space blocks that can be used in a project. Agents can use this to explore available block types before deciding which ones to add or customize.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'complete list' but fails to disclose read-only nature, performance implications, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words, directly stating purpose and typical usage context.
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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers use case but could mention what fields are returned (e.g., block names/types).
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 exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no param-specific info, but none is needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists all Shadcn Space blocks, distinguishing it from siblings like getBlockInstall or searchBlocks by focusing on exploration before addition/customization.
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?
Implies usage for exploring available blocks before customizing, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use (e.g., if searching for a specific block, use searchBlocks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listComponentsList All ComponentsA
Provides a full list of Shadcn Space components. Agents can use this to discover components to build pages or sections within a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it provides a 'full list', indicating a read-only operation. No annotations provided, so description covers basic behavior but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or return specifics.
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?
Two concise sentences front-loading the purpose. No redundant words.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool with no parameters or output schema. Could mention return format (e.g., component names/details) but not critical.
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, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no param info but schema coverage is complete; no additional meaning needed.
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?
Clearly states verb (list) and resource (components). Differentiates by focusing on 'components' rather than 'blocks', but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like listBlocks.
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?
Implies usage for discovering components to build pages/sections, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
listInstalledBlocksList Installed BlocksA
Lists all blocks that are currently installed in the project. Agents can use this to determine which blocks are available for customization or updating, and optionally filter by specific block names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | Optional list of block names to filter the installed blocks. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance considerations, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and to the point.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the description omits return value details and behavioral context. It is minimally complete for a straightforward listing operation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description in the schema. The description restates the filter option but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 lists currently installed blocks, which differentiates it from sibling tools like listBlocks (which may list all blocks) and getBlockInstall (which gets a single install).
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 provides clear usage context: agents can use it to determine available blocks for customization or updating. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies a specific use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchBlocksSearch Blocks by KeywordA
Search Shadcn Space blocks using keywords or tags. Agents can use this to find relevant blocks when building a page based on user requirements or content type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword or tag to search for relevant blocks. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state if the operation is read-only, any auth needs, rate limits, or return format. Only purpose is conveyed.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and target. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
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 simple 1-param search tool with no output schema, description covers when to use but omits return value details (e.g., format, pagination). Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter described as 'Keyword or tag to search for relevant blocks.' Description repeats this but adds no significant new meaning beyond schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches Shadcn Space blocks using keywords or tags, with a specific use case. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listBlocks (all blocks) or search-related tools.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use: 'when building a page based on user requirements or content type.' No when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.
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.
5 tool updates
v1.2.3- First observed
getBlockInstall - First observed
listBlocks - First observed
listComponents - First observed
listInstalledBlocks - First observed
searchBlocks
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Tools have distinct purposes: listing all blocks, installed blocks, components, searching, and getting install commands. Slight potential confusion between listBlocks and listInstalledBlocks, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools follow a verb+object pattern in camelCase (e.g., listBlocks, getBlockInstall). The pattern is consistent, though some names are multi-word (getBlockInstall) while others are two words (listBlocks).
Five tools is well-scoped for a server focused on managing Shadcn Space blocks and components, providing essential discovery and installation information without being excessive.
Covers listing, searching, and install commands. Missing tools for adding/removing or customizing blocks, but the server's purpose appears informational, and agents can use the install command from getBlockInstall via shell.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
The OpenRouter MCP server plugs OpenRouter into the AI tools you already use. Once connected, your assistant can pull live OpenRouter data (models, prices, your credits, rankings, and docs) and send quick test messages, all without leaving your editor.
The official Svelte MCP server providing docs and autofixing tools for Svelte development
Create, deploy, and operate MCP servers directly from your GitHub repositories.
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA mcp server to allow LLMS gain context about shadcn ui component structure,usage and installation101,929 npm2,989MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceShadcn-vue MCP Server is a powerful AI-driven tool that helps developers instantly create beautiful, modern UI components through natural language descriptions. It integrates the shadcn-vue component library and tailwindcss, seamlessly connects with mainstream IDEs, and provides a streamlined UI dev5205 npm108Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceThis MCP server provides tools to install and manage shadcn/ui components directly from AI coding agents.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA secure MCP server that gives AI coding assistants direct access to the shadcn/ui registry, enabling fetching, installing, and wiring up components without switching context.814 npm4MIT