Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
xytangme

NeoDB MCP Server

Official
by xytangme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

NeoDB MCP 服务器

一个消息控制协议 (MCP) 服务器实现，用于与社交图书编目服务NeoDB交互。该服务器提供一些工具，用于通过 NeoDB 的 API 获取用户信息、搜索图书以及检索图书详细信息。

设置

安装 UV

首先，安装 UV 包安装程序：

curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh

创建虚拟环境

使用 UV 创建并激活 Python 虚拟环境：

uv venv
source .venv/bin/activate  # On Unix/macOS
# or
.venv\Scripts\activate     # On Windows

安装依赖项

使用 UV 安装项目依赖项：

uv pip install .

Related MCP server: Open Library MCP Server

可用工具

该服务器提供以下工具：

  1. 获取用户信息

    • 获取当前用户的基本信息

    • 无需参数

  2. 搜索书籍

    • 搜索目录中的项目

    • 参数：

      • query （字符串）：书籍的搜索查询

  3. 获取书籍

    • 获取特定书籍的详细信息

    • 参数：

      • book_id （字符串）：要检索的书籍的 ID

与 Claude Desktop 一起使用

获取访问令牌

有两种方法可以获取访问令牌：

  1. 使用官方指南：按照官方文档获取您的访问令牌。

  2. 使用自动脚本：您可以使用neodb-get-access-token脚本，它提供了一种简化的方式来获取您的访问令牌。

更新配置claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "neodb": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "<PATH_TO_PROJECT_DIR>",
        "run",
        "<PATH_TO_SCRIPT>",
        "<API_BASE> e.g. https://neodb.social",
        "<ACCESS_TOKEN>"
      ]
    }
  }
}

在哪里：

  • <API_BASE> ：NeoDB API 的基本 URL

  • <ACCESS_TOKEN> ：您的 NeoDB API 访问令牌

执照

该项目根据 MIT 许可证获得许可 - 有关详细信息，请参阅LICENSE文件。

Available Tools

3 tools
get-bookC

Get detailed information about a specific book

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
book_idYesThe ID of the book to retrieve

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves information without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are critical for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return formats, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'book_id' adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific book', which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific book'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-books' (which likely searches multiple books) or 'get-user-info' (different resource), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific book, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a book_id) or contrast with 'search-books' for broader queries, leaving usage context unclear.

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

get-user-infoB

Get current user's basic info

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'basic info' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic info' entails or the return format, which is crucial for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. For a tool with such sparse structured data, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current user's basic info', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-book' or 'search-books', which operate on different resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for its application. It simply states what it does without indicating scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

search-booksC

Search items in catalog

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query for books

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Search items in catalog' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns partial/full matches, supports pagination, has rate limits, or requires authentication. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more specific. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical details.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple but vague description, this is incomplete for effective tool use. The description doesn't explain what 'items' are, what 'catalog' refers to, or what the search returns. For a search tool with one parameter, more context about behavior and results is needed.

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 one parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search items in catalog' states a general purpose (searching items) but is vague about the resource domain. It mentions 'catalog' which implies books given the tool name, but doesn't explicitly state 'books' or differentiate from potential sibling tools like get-book. The verb 'search' is clear, but the resource specification is incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-book or get-user-info. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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 updates
    • First observedget-book
    • First observedget-user-info
    • First observedsearch-books
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

B3/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get-book retrieves details for a specific book, get-user-info fetches user information, and search-books performs catalog searches. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (e.g., get-book, get-user-info, search-books), which is predictable and readable. The minor deviation is that get-user-info uses 'info' instead of a more specific noun like 'user', but overall the pattern is well-maintained.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a database server, potentially lacking operations like create, update, or delete for books or users. While the tools cover basic retrieval and search, the scope suggests more comprehensive functionality might be expected.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a database server, as it only provides read operations (get and search) with no ability to modify data (e.g., create, update, delete books or users). This creates gaps that could lead to agent failures when full CRUD operations are needed.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • OpenLibrary MCP

    uysalserkan
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables searching for books using the OpenLibrary API; provides a search_books tool for AI assistants to find books by title, author, or keywords.
    2
    Apache 2.0

  • mcp-bookbrainz

    pipeworx-io
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides access to BookBrainz open book metadata, enabling search, lookup, and browsing of works, editions, authors, publishers, and series via natural language or direct tool calls.
    167 npm
    MIT

  • bookshelf

    LiJF0406
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables managing a personal bookshelf (CRUD, reading status, tags) and searching/importing Douban book metadata through MCP tools for AI clients like Claude and Cursor.
    54,355 npm
    MIT

Appeared in Searches