Skip to main content
Glama
tshu-w

MCP Server Copilot

by tshu-w
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

MCP Server Copilot

MCP Server python PyPI - Version uv Ruff

A meta Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that seamlessly scales LLMs to 1000+ MCP servers through automatic routing without expose all servers and tools to LLMs directly.

Components

Tools

  • router-servers: Route user query to appropriate MCP servers.

    • query (string, required): User's query to find relevant servers.

    • top_k (integer, optional): Maximum number of servers to return (default: 5).

  • route-tools: Route user query to appropriate MCP tools across all servers.

    • query (string, required): User's query to find relevant tools.

    • top_k (integer, optional): Maximum number of tools to return (default: 5).

  • execute-tool: Execute a specific tool on a specific server based on previous routing results.

    • server_name (string, required): Name of the server hosting the tool.

    • tool_name (string, required): Name of the tool to execute.

    • params (object, optional): Parameters to pass to the tool, as a key-value dictionary (default: null or empty object).

Related MCP server: mcp-llm

Installation

Using uv (recommended)

When using uv no specific installation is needed. We will use uvx to directly run mcp-server-copilot.

Using PIP

Alternatively you can install mcp-server-copilot via pip:

pip install mcp-server-copilot

After installation, you can run it as a script using:

python -m mcp_server_copilot

Configuration

Copy config/config.sample.json to ~/.config/mcp-server-copilot

Add to your MCP Client settings:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "copilot": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["mcp-server-copilot", "--config", "~/.config/mcp-server-copilot/config.json"]
    }
  }
}
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "copilot": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": ["-m", "mcp_server_copilot", "--config", "~/.config/mcp-server-copilot/config.json"]
    }
  }
}

TODOs

  • Add Dockerfile

  • Tune prompt and add show cases

  • Manage Servers more easily

  • Add Semantic Routing

  • Add Planning Capabilities

  • Resources & Prompts

Available Tools

3 tools
execute-toolA

Execute a specific tool on a specific server based on previous routing results. Use this after you've identified the appropriate server and tool using the routing tools. This actually performs the requested operation.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
server_nameYes
tool_nameYes
paramsYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'actually performs the requested operation' without detailing side effects, error handling, or prerequisites.

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-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.

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?

Lacks details on success/failure behavior, error messages, or how to pass parameters, making it incomplete for an execution tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameters have no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description implies 'params' are tool arguments but provides no structure or constraints.

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 explicitly states it executes a tool on a server based on routing results, clearly distinguishing it from routing siblings like 'router-servers' and 'route-tools'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states to use after routing tools, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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

router-serversB

Route user query to appropriate servers. Use this when you need to find suitable servers that can handle the user's query. This should be your first step when processing a new query to determine which specialized servers are most relevant.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
top_kYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. Only states routing but omits implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: purpose first, then usage guidance, then additional context. No unnecessary words, though could be slightly more compact.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the tool is incomplete. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to use the parameters effectively, making it insufficient for confident selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. 'query' and 'top_k' are not described beyond their types in the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on their meaning or format.

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 tool's purpose: 'Route user query to appropriate servers.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as the first step for finding relevant servers.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to find suitable servers that can handle the user's query' and 'This should be your first step when processing a new query.' Provides clear context but does not list exclusions or alternative tools.

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

route-toolsB

Route user query to appropriate tools across all servers. Use this when you need to find specific tools that can address the user's request, regardless of which server hosts them. This is helpful when you know the task type but not which server handles it.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
top_kYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only states it routes queries but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, performance characteristics, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from separating usage guidance from purpose.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not specify the return format or how results are presented, leaving an AI agent with critical unknowns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters ('query' and 'top_k'). Without any semantic guidance, an AI agent cannot infer what inputs are expected or how they affect behavior.

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 tool's purpose: routing a user query to appropriate tools across all servers. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'execute-tool' (execution) and 'router-servers' (server listing) by focusing on cross-server tool discovery.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: when you need to find tools for a request regardless of server, or when you know the task type but not the hosting server. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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. 3 tool updatesv0.1.4
    • First observedexecute-tool
    • First observedroute-tools
    • First observedrouter-servers
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinctly different purpose: one for finding servers, one for finding tools, and one for executing a tool. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase with hyphens, but 'router-servers' uses a noun (router) while 'route-tools' uses a verb (route), introducing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a routing/coordinating server, covering the essential functions without being too few or excessive.

Completeness4/5

Covers the core routing and execution workflow. A minor gap is the lack of a direct listing tool, but the routing tools subsume that functionality.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Magg

    sitbon
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    A meta-MCP server that manages and aggregates other MCP servers, enabling LLMs to dynamically extend their own capabilities by searching for, adding, and configuring tool servers.
    16
    142
    AGPL 3.0

  • MCP of MCPs

    eliavamar
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A meta-server that aggregates multiple MCP servers into a single interface, reducing token usage by 98%+ through progressive tool discovery and direct code execution that processes data between tools without consuming context window space.
    16
    10
    Apache 2.0