mcpforge
mcpforge
Запустите MCP-сервер на 5 строках Python.
Before After
────── ─────
~200 lines of @serve
JSON-RPC stdio class MarketTools:
boilerplate, schema @tool
generation, error def latest_price(self, symbol: str) -> float: ...
handling, lifecycle @tool
management. def search(self, query: str) -> list[dict]: ...
$ python -m mcpforge run market:MarketTools
✓ MCP server running on stdioПочему mcpforge
Model Context Protocol (MCP) — это открытый стандарт, который Claude, Cursor и растущая экосистема ИИ-инструментов используют для вызова внешних функций. Это мощно — но написание сервера в настоящее время является мучением.
Вы пишете один и тот же JSON-RPC фрейминг, генерацию схемы, цикл диспетчеризации и обработку ошибок в каждом проекте. mcpforge стирает всё это. Аннотируйте свой класс. Укажите типы для своих методов. Готово.
from mcpforge import serve, tool
@serve(name="market_tools", version="0.1.0")
class MarketTools:
"""Market data tools for AI agents."""
@tool(description="Get the latest price for a symbol")
def latest_price(self, symbol: str) -> float:
return fetch_price(symbol)
@tool
def search(self, query: str, limit: int = 10) -> list[dict]:
"""Search ticker symbols matching `query`."""
return run_search(query, limit)Это полноценный, соответствующий спецификации MCP-сервер. Подсказки типов превращаются в JSON Schema. Docstrings становятся описаниями инструментов. Возвращаемые значения автоматически сериализуются.
Related MCP server: nbmcp
60-секундный быстрый старт
pip install mcpforge# hello.py
from mcpforge import serve, tool
@serve(name="hello", version="0.1.0")
class HelloTools:
@tool
def greet(self, name: str = "world") -> str:
"""Say hello to someone."""
return f"Hello, {name}!"python -m mcpforge run hello:HelloToolsТеперь у вас есть работающий MCP-сервер, общающийся по JSON-RPC 2.0 через stdio.
Как это работает
@serveпомечает класс как MCP-сервер (имя, версия, возможности).@toolрегистрирует методы как инструменты MCP.@resource(uri=...)регистрирует методы как ресурсы MCP.mcpforge анализирует сигнатуру каждого метода и создает JSON Schema — примитивы,
list[T],dict[str, T],Literal[...],Optional[T], датаклассы и модели Pydantic — всё это просто работает.python -m mcpforge run mod:Classзапускает цикл stdio, обрабатываетinitialize/tools/list/tools/call/resources/list/resources/read, и сообщает об ошибках JSON-RPC с соответствующими кодами.
Никакого внешнего SDK MCP. Только стандартная библиотека json + pydantic для удобства работы со схемами.
Встроенные серверы
Два готовых сервера, которые вы можете использовать уже сегодня:
# Filesystem tools (sandboxed to a root directory)
python -m mcpforge run mcpforge.builtin.filesystem:FilesystemTools
# HTTP fetch tools
python -m mcpforge run mcpforge.builtin.http:HttpToolsFilesystemTools предоставляет list_dir, read_file, search — в песочнице с
проверками обхода путей. HttpTools предоставляет fetch_url с ограничениями по размеру.
Подключение к Claude Desktop
Добавьте в ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"market": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "mcpforge", "run", "market:MarketTools"],
"cwd": "/path/to/your/project"
}
}
}Перезапустите Claude Desktop. Ваши инструменты появятся в диалоге.
Подключение к Cursor
~/.cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"market": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "mcpforge", "run", "market:MarketTools"]
}
}
}Сравнение
Функция | mcpforge |
| FastMCP | Свой код |
Один декоратор | Да | Нет | Да | Нет |
Авто JSON Schema из типов | Да | Нет | Да | Нет |
Поддержка Pydantic v2 | Да | Да | Да | Нет |
Нет зависимостей, кроме pyd | Да | Нет | Нет | Н/Д |
Встроенные fs / http серверы | Да | Нет | Нет | Нет |
Строк для hello world | ~5 | ~40 | ~10 | ~200 |
Проверка формата передачи
python -m mcpforge inspect market:MarketToolsВыводит точную полезную нагрузку tools/list, которую увидят ваши клиенты.
Дорожная карта
[x] Инструменты (вызов, список)
[x] Ресурсы (чтение, список)
[x] Подсказки типов -> JSON Schema (Pydantic v2, датаклассы, Literal, Optional)
[x] Встроенные серверы файловой системы и http
[ ] Подписки на ресурсы
[ ] Возможность подсказок (Prompts)
[ ] Возможность сэмплирования
[ ] Транспорт WebSocket / HTTP-SSE (опционально
[http])[ ] Асинхронные инструменты (
async def)[ ] Хуки трассировки OTel
Лицензия
MIT — см. LICENSE.
Автор: thechifura. Родственные проекты: quantflow и strategos.
Available Tools
3 toolslist_dirA
List entries in path (relative to the sandbox root).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | . |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose what types of entries are listed (files, directories), sorting order, or any other behavioral traits beyond listing.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Verb is front-loaded, and the essential context is included efficiently.
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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by noting whether entries include both files and directories.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning by specifying that path is relative to the sandbox root. This clarifies a key detail not in 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'entries in path', and adds context 'relative to the sandbox root'. It distinguishes from sibling tools read_file and search.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. The description does not mention any context or conditions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_fileA
Read up to max_bytes bytes of the file at path as UTF-8 text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it reads up to max_bytes as UTF-8 text, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., file not found, binary files) or performance implications. With no annotations, the description provides moderate 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently covers the tool's core functionality without extraneous words.
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?
Given no output schema and sibling tools, the description could mention return value format or error handling. It adequately covers the main behavior but lacks completeness for a file reading tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: path is the file location, max_bytes limits the bytes read, and specifies UTF-8 encoding. However, it does not clarify path format (absolute/relative).
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 it reads a file at a given path, up to a specified number of bytes, as UTF-8 text. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'list_dir' (listing directory contents) and 'search' (searching for files).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchC
Recursively search for pattern in files under path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | ||
| path | No | . | |
| max_results | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions recursion but omits critical details: pattern syntax (regex/glob?), case sensitivity, file inclusion criteria, effect of max_results, and whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.
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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it omits necessary details, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. It could be longer to include essential context without becoming wordy.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain return values, error handling, and behavior under limits. It does not, leaving major gaps for an agent using this tool.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions pattern and path but does not define pattern semantics or default behavior for path. max_results is not explained at all. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
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 recursively searches for a pattern in files under a path. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('files'), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_dir and read_file, which serve different purposes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as file types or permissions, and does not mention any alternative search methods.
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.
3 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
list_dir - First observed
read_file - First observed
search
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing directory entries, reading file contents, and searching for patterns. No overlap in functionality.
Naming is mainly verb_noun (list_dir, read_file) with one tool using a single verb (search). All use consistent snake_case, but slight pattern deviation prevents a perfect score.
Three tools is a reasonable and focused set for basic file operations within a sandbox. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.
Only read-only operations are provided. Missing write, update, or delete tools, which are essential for a file manipulation server, leaving significant gaps.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
A simple MCP server built with FastMCP and python
An MCP server that let you interact with Cycloid.io Internal Development Portal and Platform
MCP server for progressive tool usage at any scale (see https://klavis.ai)
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA MCP server framework with zero-config auto-discovery, type-safe decorators, and HTTP transport, enabling easy creation and deployment of tools, prompts, and resources to LeanMCP Cloud.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables building lightweight MCP servers where Rust handles transport, routing, and schema validation while Python defines tool behavior using type hints, with support for stdio and HTTP transports.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA FastAPI-style framework for building MCP servers in Python, enabling declarative tool definitions with automatic schema validation and multiple transport options.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA no-nonsense framework for building stdio MCP servers using plain async handlers and type annotations, with strict schema validation and no configuration overhead.MIT