Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
utakatano

mcp-server-sample

by utakatano
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

mcp-server-sample — 最小化的 MCP 服务器，用于保存和搜索笔记

这是一个仅用于保存和搜索笔记的最小化 MCP 服务器。它不连接任何外部系统。 保存位置仅在同文件夹的 notes.json 文件中。

它包含 MCP 的三种原语，每种一个。

原语

谁决定

该服务器中的内容

工具

模型判断

add_note（添加笔记）／search_notes（搜索笔记）

资源

AI 应用获取并传递

notes://all（所有已保存的笔记）

提示

用户明确选择

weekly_review（本周回顾）

先决条件

  • Node.js 24 或更高版本（LTS。用 node --version 确认）

  • git

Related MCP server: mcp-snippetbox

设置

git clone https://github.com/utakatano/mcp-server-sample.git
cd mcp-server-sample
npm install

如果 npm install 成功，则准备就绪。此时不会启动。 MCP 服务器由 AI 应用启动，因此无需自己从终端运行。

连接到 AI 应用

Claude Code

claude mcp add notes -- node /絶対パス/mcp-server-sample/index.js

如果 claude mcp list 显示 ✔ Connected，则表示已连接。

Claude Desktop

设置 → Developer → 点击「Edit Config」打开 claude_desktop_config.json，并添加以下内容。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "notes": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/絶対パス/mcp-server-sample/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

保存后，完全退出 Claude Desktop 并重新启动（仅关闭窗口不会生效）。

  • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

验证

「来週までにネットワーク構成を確認する」とメモして
「ネットワーク」を含むメモを探して

可以看到 notes.json 被创建，并且内容不断增加。

更改保存位置

通过环境变量 NOTES_FILE 传递绝对路径，可以更改保存位置。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "notes": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/絶対パス/mcp-server-sample/index.js"],
      "env": { "NOTES_FILE": "/絶対パス/my-notes.json" }
    }
  }
}

无法连接时

首先查看日志。原因通常出现在这里。

tail -20 ~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp-server-notes.log   # macOS
# Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\logs\mcp-server-notes.log

检查 Server started and connected successfully 之后是否跟着错误。

日志中显示的内容

原因

解决方法

Cannot find module '/.../index.js'

args 的路径不正确

在仓库根目录下执行 pwd，将其输出加上 /index.js 重新粘贴

spawn node ENOENT

AI 应用找不到 node。当使用 nvm / volta 且 PATH 仅存在于 shell 配置中时会发生

将 which node 的输出（绝对路径）直接写入 command

Cannot find package '@modelcontextprotocol/server'

依赖未安装

在仓库根目录下执行 npm ci

日志为空或未更新

配置未加载

检查 JSON 语法（逗号、括号），完全退出 Claude Desktop（macOS 按 ⌘Q）后重新启动

区分是服务器端还是 AI 应用端的问题，最快的方法是在本地直接测试。

printf '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list","params":{"_meta":{"io.modelcontextprotocol/protocolVersion":"2026-07-28"}}}\n' \
  | node /絶対パス/mcp-server-sample/index.js

如果返回包含 add_note 和 search_notes 的 JSON，则服务器正常。在这种情况下，请检查 AI 应用端的配置（路径、JSON 编写方式、重启）。

供应链安全对策

在 .npmrc 中设置了针对 npm 包被劫持的配置。每次 npm install / npm ci 时都会生效。

设置

作用

ignore-scripts=true

安装时不会执行依赖包的生命周期脚本（如 postinstall）。阻止被劫持的包首先使用的执行路径。npm start / npm run 仍然正常工作（只有 pre / post 脚本不会运行）

save-exact=true

npm install <pkg> 会在 package.json 中写入完整版本号，不带 ^

min-release-age=7

仅安装发布超过 7 天的版本。npm 会将其转换为 before=<7天前的日期> 来解析依赖

依赖在 package.json 中完全固定（@modelcontextprotocol/server 为 2.0.0，zod 为 4.4.3）， 并在 package-lock.json 中记录带有 integrity 哈希的版本。 如果需要严格按照 lock 文件安装，请使用 npm ci 而不是 npm install。

更新依赖时，请逐个有意图地升级。

npm outdated
npm install @modelcontextprotocol/server@2.1.0   # save-exact により完全固定で書かれる
npm ls --all                                      # 増えた依存を目で確認する

许可证

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
add_noteメモを追加するA

メモを1件保存する。打ち合わせの決定事項や、あとで思い出したいことを記録するときに使う。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo分類用のタグ（任意）
textYes保存する本文

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 states '保存する' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicates. For a simple create operation, this is minimally 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the essential action. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the primary use case and differentiates from the sibling. It could mention the return value but is not required.

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 100% with both parameters described. The tool's description adds no new information about the parameters; it only restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '保存する' (save) and resource 'メモ' (note), and it is distinct from the sibling tool 'search_notes' which is for retrieval.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use: '打ち合わせの決定事項や、あとで思い出したいことを記録するときに使う' (use when recording meeting decisions or things you want to remember later). It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the purpose is clear.

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

search_notesメモを検索するB

保存済みのメモをキーワードで検索する。本文とタグの両方を対象にする。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes検索キーワード

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states search targets both body text and tags, but lacks details on whether searches are case-sensitive, support partial matches, or have rate limits. It does not mention return format or pagination. The description adds modest value but is insufficient for a tool lacking annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and target, then expands on scope. Every phrase adds value.

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 is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the search target and scope. However, it omits any mention of results behavior (e.g., whether it returns full notes or summaries) and does not compensate for missing annotations, but the low complexity reduces the burden.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'keyword'. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that keyword searches both body and tags, which the schema description ('検索キーワード') does not convey. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action (検索する), the target (保存済みのメモ), and the search scope (本文とタグの両方). It distinguishes from add_note, which creates notes. However, it does not explicitly contrast the two, leaving a slight gap in sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies usage for keyword search but gives no guidance on when to use this vs. add_note, nor does it mention any context or prerequisites for searching. No exclusion criteria or alternative scenarios are provided.

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. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedadd_note
    • First observedsearch_notes
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one creates/ stores a note, the other retrieves notes via search. There is no overlap or ambiguity between writing and searching.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (add_note, search_notes) using lowercase with underscores. The naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the set feels minimal. While the tools cover basic create and read/search operations, the server's purpose (saving and retrieving notes) could reasonably include more tools (e.g., update, delete, list tags) to avoid being overly thin.

Completeness2/5

The domain is a personal note-taking system, but only add and search operations are provided. Missing critical operations like update, delete, and get all notes (without search) create significant gaps that would frustrate or block a typical agent workflow.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers