Ein MCP-Server für die XMPie uStore BackOffice REST API unter
https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi.
Status: funktionsfähig, Ende-zu-Ende gegen die Live-API verifiziert. Die Spezifikation lädt (52 Pfade / 63 Operationen über 15 Tag-Gruppen), die Anmeldung gelingt, und ustore_call_endpoint GET /v1/admin/stores liefert HTTP 200. Die Schreibschutz-Sperre verweigert DELETE korrekt.
Der Server hardcodiert keine Endpunkte. Beim ersten Gebrauch ruft er das eigene OpenAPI-3.0-Dokument der API ab und stellt darüber fünf Tools bereit:
Tool | Zweck |
| Controller-Gruppen + Operationszahlen – der Orientierungsaufruf |
| Operationen nach Tag, Methode oder Text suchen/filtern |
| Vollständiger Vertrag: Parameter, Anforderungstext, Antwortstruktur |
| Eine Anforderung ausführen; Authentifizierung serverseitig behandelt |
| Diagnose: Basis-URL, Spezifikationsquelle, Authentifizierungsmodus, Schreibrichtlinie |
Dies ist die gleiche Form wie bei den MSSQL-MCP-Servern (list_databases → list_tables → describe_table → query), und es hält die Anzahl der Tools gering, unabhängig davon, wie viele Endpunkte die API bereitstellt. Es übersteht auch uStore-Upgrades – neue Endpunkte erscheinen automatisch beim nächsten Spezifikations-Refresh.
Schreibvorgänge sind standardmäßig deaktiviert. Nicht-GET-Methoden werden abgelehnt, bis USTORE_ALLOW_WRITES=true auf dem Serverprozess gesetzt ist.
Related MCP server: mcp-db-server
Muss auf einem Host mit internem Netzwerkzugriff auf produproduce ausgeführt werden.
cd /opt/mcp/ustore-backoffice-mcp
npm install
cp .env.example .env
$EDITOR .env # credentials — the base URL and spec URL are preset
npm run probe # optional: re-confirm the spec URL and auth handshakeDer Authentifizierungs-Handshake ist gegen die Live-API bestätigt und ist bereits der Standard:
POST {base}/v1/admin/auth/login {"email": "...", "password": "..."}
-> 200 {"Token": "..."}
Authorization: uStoreBackoffice <token> # on every subsequent requestBeachten Sie, dass der Anmeldetext email verwendet, nicht username, und das Token-Feld ist großgeschrieben Token. Das Schema ist wörtlich uStoreBackoffice – die API lehnt jedes andere Präfix mit {"Errors":[{"Message":"Invalid security token."}]} ab.
Die Spezifikations-URL ist ebenfalls bestätigt und voreingestellt:
USTORE_SPEC_URL=https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi/ustore-oas3Sie muss explizit gesetzt werden – diese Bereitstellung liefert OAS3 unter /ustore-oas3, und die Pfade, die loadSpec() sonst abfragen würde, geben alle 404 zurück.
Dann:
npm run http # or: npm run stdioÜberprüfen:
$ curl -s localhost:8931/healthz
{"ok":true,"target":"https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi"}/healthz beweist nur, dass der Prozess läuft. Um zu bestätigen, dass der API-Teil funktioniert, rufen Sie ustore_server_info von einem Client auf – es meldet das aufgelöste Authentifizierungsschema und die Anzahl der Operationen und schlägt laut fehl, wenn die Anmeldung defekt ist.
pm2 start index.js --name ustore-mcp --node-args="--enable-source-maps"
pm2 save[Unit]
Description=uStore BackOffice MCP server
After=network-online.target
[Service]
Type=simple
User=tc
WorkingDirectory=/opt/mcp/ustore-backoffice-mcp
EnvironmentFile=/opt/mcp/ustore-backoffice-mcp/.env
ExecStart=/usr/bin/node index.js
Restart=on-failure
RestartSec=5
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.targetHalten Sie .env bei chmod 600 – es enthält eine uStore-BackOffice-Anmeldeinformation, die eine administrative ist.
SSE benötigt deaktiviertes Buffering und ein langes Server-Timeout, sonst werden Sitzungen abgeschnitten:
backend be_mcp_ustore
mode http
option http-server-close
timeout server 3600s
timeout tunnel 3600s
http-request set-header X-Accel-Buffering no
server ustore1 127.0.0.1:8931 checkBeide Transporte werden bedient: POST /mcp (Streamable HTTP, aktuelle Spezifikation) und GET /sse + POST /messages (Legacy-SSE, passend zum bestehenden Stack). Setzen Sie MCP_BEARER_TOKEN, wenn der Server selbst ein gemeinsames Geheimnis prüfen soll, anstatt sich nur auf HAProxy-ACLs zu verlassen.
Lokales stdio (Claude Desktop auf derselben Maschine):
{
"mcpServers": {
"ustore-backoffice": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/opt/mcp/ustore-backoffice-mcp/index.js"],
"env": { "MCP_TRANSPORT": "stdio" }
}
}
}Schreiben Sie die Konfigurationsdatei als UTF-8 ohne BOM.
In diesem env-Block sind keine Anmeldeinformationen erforderlich: Der Server liest die .env, die neben index.js liegt. Claude Desktop startet MCP-Server mit cwd=/ und einer nahezu leeren Umgebung, daher löst config.js .env relativ zu seinem eigenen Dateispeicherort auf, nicht zum Arbeitsverzeichnis. Alles, was Sie doch in env setzen, gewinnt weiterhin – echte Umgebungsvariablen haben Vorrang vor der Datei.
Nach dem Bearbeiten der Konfiguration beenden Sie Claude Desktop vollständig (Cmd-Q auf macOS, nicht nur das Fenster schließen), damit der Serverprozess neu gestartet wird.
Berechtigungsumfang. BackOffice-API-Konten sind in der Regel vollständige Administratoren. Wenn uStore eine eingeschränkte Operator-Rolle unterstützt, verwenden Sie eine – die Schreibschutz-Sperre in diesem Server schützt vor Unfällen, nicht vor einem kompromittierten Token.
USTORE_ALLOW_PATHS ist eine Regex-Allowlist. Durch das Setzen wird der Server auf die Controller eingeschränkt, die Sie tatsächlich benötigen, was eine stärkere Kontrolle ist als das Schreib-Flag allein.
Antwortkürzung standardmäßig auf 60k Zeichen. Wenn ein Auflistungs-Endpunkt überläuft, verwenden Sie seine Paginierungsparameter, anstatt die Obergrenze zu erhöhen – diese API nennt sie pageNumber (1-basiert) und pageSize (Standard 50).
Spezifikations-Caching aktualisiert alle 15 Minuten. Nach einem uStore-Upgrade rufen Sie ustore_server_info mit refreshSpec: true auf, um Änderungen sofort zu übernehmen.
Authentifizierungsfehler, die wie Verbindungsfehler aussehen. Der Server startet und listet seine Tools auch dann, wenn Anmeldeinformationen fehlen – die Anmeldung erfolgt erst beim ersten API-Aufruf. Wenn Tools erscheinen, aber jeder Aufruf Fehler meldet, führen Sie ustore_server_info aus und prüfen Sie hasToken.
Dies ergänzt, nicht ersetzt, den SQL-MCP-Server. Die REST-API erzwingt die Geschäftslogik von uStore, daher ist sie der richtige Weg für alles, was den Zustand verändert. Direkte [PRODUPRODUCE].ustore-Abfragen bleiben besser für Reporting-Joins und Schema-Archäologie.
Execute a request against the uStore BackOffice REST API. Path placeholders such as {orderId} are filled from pathParams. Authentication is handled by the server. Non-GET methods are refused unless writes are explicitly enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body for POST/PUT/PATCH | |
| path | Yes | Spec path, e.g. /api/Orders/{orderId} | |
| query | No | Query string parameters | |
| method | Yes | GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH | |
| headers | No | Extra request headers | |
| pathParams | No | Values substituted into {placeholders} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful behavioral context: authentication is server-side, and non-GET methods are refused unless writes are explicitly enabled. However, it does not clarify what 'explicitly enabled' means, nor does it describe errors, response behavior, 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?
Four short sentences deliver the essential facts without filler. The most critical constraints and behaviors are placed up front, and every sentence earns its place.
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 description is adequate for a generic endpoint caller, covering auth, path substitution, and write protection. However, the ambiguous 'writes explicitly enabled' condition and the lack of any guidance about the response format or failure modes leave meaningful gaps for an agent choosing to invoke likely mutating endpoints.
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 complete, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining how pathParams fill placeholders and by adding an operational constraint on the method parameter. This behavior cannot be inferred from the input schema alone.
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 uses a specific action ('Execute a request against the uStore BackOffice REST API') and clearly identifies the target resource and mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_endpoints or describe_endpoint by being the actual invocation tool.
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 intended use—executing a request—is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this against discovering or describing endpoints. The write-refusal note is a restriction, not a usage guideline with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the full contract for one operation: path/query/header parameters, request body shape, and response shape. Call this before ustore_call_endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | e.g. /api/Orders/{orderId} | |
| method | No | Required when path is ambiguous | |
| operationId | No | Alternative to path+method |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation (showing the contract) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require permissions. It does add useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns and the required sequence, but lacks mention of error behavior or edge cases.
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 that front-load the core purpose and then give actionable guidance. No filler or redundancy.
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 description covers what the tool returns and its recommended usage sequence. Missing mention of error behaviors or parameter ambiguity resolution, but given its simple role and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverageging. The description mentions the contract contents but doesn't add further semantic meaning to the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Show the full contract for one operation' and enumerates the contract's contents (path/query/header parameters, request body, response shape). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by tying it to ustore_call_endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous and specific.
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?
It explicitly directs the agent to 'Call this before ustore_call_endpoint', providing a clear temporal use case. It doesn't discuss when not to use it or contrast with list_endpoints, but the core guidance is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List operations in the uStore BackOffice REST API. Filter by tag, HTTP method, or a free-text search across path, operationId and summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Restrict to one tag group | |
| limit | No | Default 100 | |
| method | No | GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH | |
| search | No | Substring match on path/operationId/summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety and behavior. 'List operations' conveys a read-only action and the filterable fields are stated, but it does not describe pagination behavior, output shape, or authentication expectations. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not highly transparent.
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 two short sentences with the key action first and filtering capabilities in the second. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.
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 discovery tool with four fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the filtering dimensions, and implies the fields available in results. It does not add alternative-tool guidance, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases tag, method, and search filtering but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; the search field details are already present in the schema. The limit parameter is left entirely to the 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists operations in the uStore BackOffice REST API, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ustore_describe_endpoint, ustore_call_endpoint, and ustore_list_tags by focusing on discovering operations rather than describing, calling, or listing tags.
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 intended use is implied by the purpose — discover API operations and optionally filter them — but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention excluded cases or prerequisites. There is no when/when-not guidance, only the clear listing behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the tag groups (controllers) exposed by the uStore BackOffice REST API, with the number of operations in each. Start here to orient yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 clearly identifies the operation as a read-only listing ('List') and specifies what is returned (tag groups with operation counts). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple zero-parameter list this is not a significant gap.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. 'Start here to orient yourself' adds practical guidance without unnecessary verbosity.
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 orientation tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed, what counts are included, and how to use it as a starting point. It could mention relationship to sibling tools, but this is not essential for the tool's simple purpose.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the output and purpose.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('tag groups (controllers) exposed by the uStore BackOffice REST API') and adds useful detail ('with the number of operations in each'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints and describe_endpoint by focusing specifically on tag groups/controllers.
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?
'Start here to orient yourself' provides clear context for when to use this tool, positioning it as the initial discovery step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Report the configured base URL, spec source, auth mode, and write policy. Use this when calls are failing to confirm how the server is wired up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refreshSpec | No | Re-fetch the OpenAPI document |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description implies a read-only reporting operation. The parameter description covers refreshSpec's side effect (re-fetching OpenAPI), providing adequate transparency.
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: first states purpose, second gives usage context. No redundancy.
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 info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it, making it complete enough.
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?
Parameter refreshSpec is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%). The main description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it reports the configured base URL, spec source, auth mode, and write policy, distinguishing from sibling tools like list/describe/call endpoints.
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?
Explicitly suggests using when calls are failing to confirm server wiring, but does not mention when not to use or alternatives (though siblings are evident).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1ustore_call_endpointustore_describe_endpointustore_list_endpointsustore_list_tagsustore_server_infoScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a distinct role: listing tags, listing endpoints, describing a single endpoint, calling an endpoint, and reporting server info. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
Most tools follow a ustore_verb_noun pattern (list_tags, list_endpoints, describe_endpoint, call_endpoint), but server_info deviates by using noun_noun without a verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.
Five tools is an ideal count for a focused API client server. Each tool serves a necessary and distinct function, with no bloat or obvious missing piece.
The tool set covers the full workflow: orient (list tags), discover (list endpoints), understand (describe endpoint), and act (call endpoint), plus diagnostics (server info). No critical gaps for interacting with the underlying API.
Ask your Quickbase apps in plain language. Read-only by default; writes need human approval.
Query your org's data in natural language — read-only MCP access to SQL, NoSQL, files & warehouses.
Read-only AgentiScript concept search, catalog, authenticity, license, and approved asset discovery.
Query and audit AppSheet apps in natural language via Knotrik's pre-scanned definitions.
