Un servidor MCP para la API REST de XMPie uStore BackOffice en
https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi.
Estado: funcionando, verificado de extremo a extremo contra la API en vivo. La especificación se carga (52 rutas / 63 operaciones en 15 grupos de etiquetas), el inicio de sesión tiene éxito, y ustore_call_endpoint GET /v1/admin/stores devuelve HTTP 200. El guard de solo lectura rechaza correctamente DELETE.
El servidor no codifica endpoints de forma fija. En el primer uso, obtiene el documento OpenAPI 3.0 de la propia API y expone cinco herramientas sobre él:
Herramienta | Propósito |
| Grupos de controladores + recuentos de operaciones: la llamada de orientación |
| Buscar/filtrar operaciones por etiqueta, método o texto |
| Contrato completo: parámetros, cuerpo de solicitud, forma de respuesta |
| Ejecutar una solicitud; autenticación gestionada en el servidor |
| Diagnósticos: URL base, fuente de especificación, modo de autenticación, política de escritura |
Esta es la misma forma que los servidores MCP de MSSQL (list_databases → list_tables → describe_table → query), y mantiene el número de herramientas bajo sin importar cuántos endpoints exponga la API. También sobrevive a las actualizaciones de uStore: los nuevos endpoints aparecen automáticamente en la siguiente actualización de la especificación.
Las escrituras están deshabilitadas por defecto. Los métodos que no sean GET se rechazan hasta que se establezca USTORE_ALLOW_WRITES=true en el proceso del servidor.
Related MCP server: mcp-db-server
Debe ejecutarse en un host con acceso a la red interna de produproduce.
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 handshakeEl handshake de autenticación está confirmado contra la API en vivo y ya es el predeterminado:
POST {base}/v1/admin/auth/login {"email": "...", "password": "..."}
-> 200 {"Token": "..."}
Authorization: uStoreBackoffice <token> # on every subsequent requestTen en cuenta que el cuerpo de inicio de sesión usa email, no username, y el campo de token es Token con mayúscula. El esquema es literalmente uStoreBackoffice: la API rechaza cualquier otro prefijo con {"Errors":[{"Message":"Invalid security token."}]}.
La URL de la especificación también está confirmada y preestablecida:
USTORE_SPEC_URL=https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi/ustore-oas3Debe establecerse explícitamente: este despliegue sirve OAS3 en /ustore-oas3, y las rutas que loadSpec() probaría de otro modo devuelven 404.
Luego:
npm run http # or: npm run stdioVerificar:
$ curl -s localhost:8931/healthz
{"ok":true,"target":"https://produproduce.mysite.com/ustorebackofficerestapi"}/healthz solo demuestra que el proceso está activo. Para confirmar que la parte de la API funciona, llama a ustore_server_info desde un cliente: informa el esquema de autenticación resuelto y el recuento de operaciones, y falla de forma ruidosa si el inicio de sesión está roto.
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.targetMantén .env con chmod 600: contiene una credencial de uStore BackOffice, que es administrativa.
SSE necesita el buffering desactivado y un timeout de servidor largo, o las sesiones se cortan:
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 checkSe sirven ambos transportes: POST /mcp (HTTP Streamable, especificación actual) y GET /sse + POST /messages (SSE heredado, que coincide con la pila existente). Establece MCP_BEARER_TOKEN si quieres que el servidor verifique un secreto compartido en lugar de depender solo de las ACL de HAProxy.
stdio local (Claude Desktop en la misma máquina):
{
"mcpServers": {
"ustore-backoffice": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/opt/mcp/ustore-backoffice-mcp/index.js"],
"env": { "MCP_TRANSPORT": "stdio" }
}
}
}Escribe el archivo de configuración como UTF-8 sin BOM.
No se necesitan credenciales en ese bloque env: el servidor lee el .env que se encuentra junto a index.js. Claude Desktop lanza los servidores MCP con cwd=/ y un entorno casi vacío, por lo que config.js resuelve .env contra su propia ubicación de archivo en lugar del directorio de trabajo. Cualquier cosa que sí pongas en env sigue ganando: las variables de entorno reales tienen prioridad sobre el archivo.
Después de editar la configuración, sal por completo de Claude Desktop (Cmd-Q en macOS, no solo cerrar la ventana) para que el proceso del servidor se reinicie.
Alcance de credenciales. Las cuentas de API de BackOffice suelen ser administrador completo. Si uStore admite un rol de operador limitado, usa uno: el guard de solo lectura en este servidor protege contra accidentes, no contra un token comprometido.
USTORE_ALLOW_PATHS es una lista blanca de expresiones regulares. Configurarlo reduce el servidor a los controladores que realmente necesitas, lo cual es un control más fuerte que el flag de escritura solo.
Truncamiento de respuestas tiene un valor predeterminado de 60k caracteres. Si un endpoint de listado se desborda, usa sus parámetros de paginación en lugar de aumentar el límite: esta API los escribe como pageNumber (basado en 1) y pageSize (predeterminado 50).
Caché de especificación se actualiza cada 15 minutos. Después de una actualización de uStore, llama a ustore_server_info con refreshSpec: true para recoger los cambios de inmediato.
Fallos de autenticación que parecen fallos de conexión. El servidor se inicia y lista sus herramientas incluso cuando faltan credenciales: el inicio de sesión solo ocurre en la primera llamada a la API. Si las herramientas aparecen pero cada llamada da error, ejecuta ustore_server_info y verifica hasToken.
Esto complementa, no reemplaza, el servidor MCP de SQL. La API REST aplica la lógica de negocio de uStore, por lo que es la ruta correcta para cualquier cosa que mute el estado. Las consultas directas a [PRODUPRODUCE].ustore siguen siendo mejores para uniones de informes y arqueología de esquemas.
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.
