Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
tewfiq

genai-solutions-mcp

by tewfiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

genai-solutions-mcp

Un servidor MCP que expone una base de datos curada de herramientas de IA generativa — 1,197 registros que he mantenido en Notion desde 2023 — como cuatro herramientas que un asistente de IA puede consultar directamente.

En lugar de preguntar a un modelo qué herramientas de IA existen y obtener una respuesta plausible pero desactualizada, le pides que busque en un conjunto de datos que tiene una persona detrás.

> Which open-source tools in here run locally and have a CLI?
> Compare Firecrawl and the other scraping options.

Instalación

npm install
npm run build
npm start

Sin clave API, sin red, sin base de datos. El conjunto de datos se incluye con el repositorio.

Regístrelo con un cliente MCP (Claude Desktop se muestra aquí):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "genai-solutions": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/absolute/path/to/genai-solutions-mcp/dist/src/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP server: disvr

Herramientas

Herramienta

Propósito

search_solutions

Texto libre + filtros (tipo, ecosistema, capacidades, origen, selecciones)

get_solution

Registro completo para un identificador

list_categories

Cada categoría con su recuento de registros

compare_solutions

2–4 registros alineados en los mismos campos

Decisiones de diseño

Una instantánea comprometida, no un proxy en vivo de Notion. El diseño obvio es llamar a la API de Notion en cada llamada de herramienta. También es el que hace que el repositorio sea inútil para todos excepto para mí: necesitarías mi token y mi base de datos. En su lugar, scripts/sync-notion.ts exporta Notion a data/solutions.json, que está versionado aquí, y el servidor solo lee ese archivo. La compensación es la frescura — los datos están tan actualizados como la última sincronización — frente a un servidor que cualquiera puede clonar y ejecutar en quince segundos, sin credenciales, sin dependencia de red en el momento de la llamada y sin límite de tasa. Los datos subyacentes cambian como máximo semanalmente, por lo que la frescura es lo más barato de sacrificar.

Búsqueda de subcadenas, no embeddings. ~1,100 registros es un escaneo lineal de submilisegundos. Un índice vectorial agregaría un paso de embedding a la sincronización, una dependencia de modelo, resultados no deterministas y un índice que mantener coherente con la instantánea — a cambio de recuperación semántica en un corpus donde las consultas útiles son principalmente nombres y categorías. Si el conjunto de datos crece un orden de magnitud o los resúmenes se alargan, esto es lo primero que se debe revisitar.

La búsqueda devuelve una proyección, no registros completos. search_solutions devuelve solo id, nombre, tipo y url. Devolver registros completos para una consulta de 20 resultados gastaría una gran cantidad del contexto del agente en campos que normalmente no necesita; get_solution está ahí para cuando sí lo hace.

Una lista blanca de propiedades en la sincronización, no una lista negra. La base de datos de Notion contiene estado interno del flujo de trabajo y archivos adjuntos que no deberían ser públicos. scripts/sync-notion.ts nombra las propiedades que exporta, por lo que agregar una columna privada en Notion más tarde no puede filtrarla aquí silenciosamente.

Limitaciones conocidas

  • El Type de Notion es una selección única, por lo que cada herramienta tiene exactamente una categoría incluso cuando dos encajarían.

  • Los valores de categoría fueron ingresados a mano durante tres años y son dispares; la sincronización combina duplicados de mayúsculas y minúsculas pero no fusiona casi sinónimos.

  • Sin clasificación de relevancia más allá de la coincidencia de subcadenas ponderada por campo.

  • El etiquetado de atributos es dispar. Local y Open Source se aplicaron en diferentes épocas con diferentes hábitos, y se superponen en solo un registro aunque muchas herramientas califican para ambos. Los filtros son honestos sobre lo que está etiquetado, no sobre lo que es verdadero — una propiedad que este conjunto de datos comparte con la mayoría de las bases de datos internas reales.

  • La resolución de Node depende del entorno anfitrión. Se observó que el servidor se inicia bajo dos instalaciones diferentes de Node en la misma máquina dependiendo del contexto de lanzamiento. Fije la ruta del runtime en su configuración del cliente si eso le importa.

Sincronización (solo para mantenedor)

NOTION_TOKEN=… NOTION_DATABASE_ID=… npm run sync
git diff data/solutions.json   # read it before committing

Licencia

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools
compare_solutionsCompare solutionsB

Return 2 to 4 solutions side by side on the same fields.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions returning solutions side by side, but does not state whether this tool is read-only, any side effects, or constraints like required permissions. It lacks transparency beyond the basic function.

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 concise sentence that uses active voice and front-loads the key information (return 2 to 4 solutions). No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does and the range of solutions, but does not describe the output format, any sorting or ordering, or related constraints like required fields for comparison. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 describes the only parameter 'ids' with min/max items, but the description adds context that the output is a side-by-side comparison on the same fields. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining the purpose, but does not elaborate on the 'ids' parameter meaning or format.

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 returns 2 to 4 solutions side by side on the same fields, which provides a specific verb ('return') and resource ('solutions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_solutions' or 'get_solution' by emphasizing comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that this tool is for comparing multiple solutions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_solution' or 'search_solutions'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

get_solutionGet one solutionA

Return the full record for a single solution by id.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read operation ('Return the full record') without indicating idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior. It does not state whether the returned record is guaranteed fresh or cached, nor whether authentication is needed. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence (14 words) that efficiently captures purpose, resource, and method. Every word is relevant. No wasted phrasing. Front-loaded with the action 'Return the full record' – ideal for scanning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient functional purpose. However, it lacks mention of what happens if the id is invalid (e.g., 404), or whether the response includes nested objects like related items. The absence of an output schema means the description should hint at the 'full record' structure, but it does not enumerate fields. It is just adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by id,' which maps to the required 'id' parameter, adding basic context. However, it does not clarify that id is a string (schema indicates type), nor does it provide format guidance (e.g., UUID vs plain string). For a single required param, this is borderline acceptable but lacks helpful detail beyond the schema.

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 'Return the full record for a single solution by id,' specifying the verb (return) and resource (full record for solution) and the identifying method (by id). It distinguishes from list_categories and search_solutions (which retrieve multiple) and compare_solutions (comparison), but could be more explicit that this is the singular retrieval endpoint.

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 description implies use when you need a complete record of a known solution, contrasting with search_solutions (which returns summaries/partial data) and list_categories (which returns categories, not solutions). However, no explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given, though the sibling context clarifies alternatives. The lack of mention about requiring the ID beforehand is a minor gap.

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

list_categoriesList categoriesA

Return every category present in the database with its record count, so filters can be built against real values rather than guesses.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every category with its record count, which is a clear behavioral trait. It does not mention performance, data freshness, or side effects, but for a simple read-only list tool, the description is adequate.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Return every category') and includes the purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively complete for a simple list tool. However, it could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., whether categories are sorted) or any limits. The explanation of purpose is helpful, but the lack of output schema details leaves some ambiguity.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description already provides value beyond the schema.

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 'Return every category' with a specific verb and resource, and explains the purpose ('so filters can be built against real values rather than guesses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with solutions, not categories.

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 description implies when to use this tool: when building filters based on real category values. It provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. However, siblings are clearly different (solutions), so the guidance is sufficient.

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

search_solutionsSearch GenAI solutionsA

Search a curated database of generative AI tools by free text and filters. Returns a short projection (id, name, type, url); call get_solution with an id for the full record.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoCategory — call list_categories for valid values
limitNoDefault 20, max 100
queryNoFree text, matched against name
originNoAll must match. E.g. France, EMEA, China, YC
ecosystemNo
picksOnlyNoRestrict to curator's picks
capabilitiesNoAll must match. E.g. API, Open Source, Local, Terminal, Installation, HF

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape (short projection) and directs to get_solution for full records. However, it omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though limit param exists), result ordering, or what happens with empty results. This is a moderate disclosure but has gaps.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and result, then provide a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no fluff or repetition. Ideal conciseness for a search tool.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main input mechanism (free text and filters), the output projection, and the follow-up sibling call. However, it does not explain the overall filtering logic (AND across parameters) or pagination, which are implicit from the limit parameter. Still, it is reasonably complete for standard usage.

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 high (86%), so the schema already provides strong param documentation. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how multiple filters combine or the meaning of limit's default). Given the high baseline, the description's value is neutral; it doesn't degrade but doesn't enhance.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated database of generative AI tools', and specifies the method 'by free text and filters'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'returns a short projection (id, name, type, url); call get_solution...' and implicitly from list_categories (for valid values of type) and compare_solutions (not mentioned but different purpose).

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 description tells the agent when to use get_solution ('for the full record') after a search, which provides a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid search_solutions or when to use list_categories or compare_solutions, leaving some ambiguity for related sibling tools.

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. 4 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcompare_solutions
    • First observedget_solution
    • First observedlist_categories
    • First observedsearch_solutions
Deploy Server
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search for filtering, get for full details, list categories for filter options, and compare for side-by-side comparison. No overlap exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (search_solutions, get_solution, list_categories, compare_solutions), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With four tools, the server is well-scoped for a curated database of generative AI solutions. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, category listing, and comparison without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core read-only operations needed for a solutions database: discovery (search), detail retrieval (get), filter exploration (list_categories), and comparison. No obvious gaps—the domain is fully addressed.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP-MCP

    wojtyniak
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Meta-MCP Server that acts as a tool discovery service, helping AI assistants find appropriate MCP servers from a database of 800+ servers when they need capabilities that aren't currently available.
    1
    23
    MIT

  • disvr

    Svanik-yan
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Tool search engine for AI agents. One API call to discover the best MCP server for any task. 900+ services indexed with 4-dimensional value ranking.
    MIT