Source profileQuality 91/100

event4u-app/agent-config/src/skills/mcp-builder/SKILL.md

mcp-builder

Use when building an MCP server in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK) — agent-centric tool design, input schemas, error handling, and the 10-question evaluation harness.

Source repository stars
7
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-07-28
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Author MCP servers that LLMs can drive end-to-end. The quality bar is can the agent finish the workflow, not does the endpoint return 200. This skill is the server-author counterpart to the existing mcp consumer skill.

Best for

  • Wrapping an external API or service as MCP tools for an LLM client.
  • Adding tools to an existing MCP server (Python FastMCP or TypeScript SDK).
  • Reviewing an MCP server before shipping — Phase 4 evaluation gate below.

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/mcp-builder"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "mcp-builder" from https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config/blob/0adf49a8ae84b0ff6e2de8759eea43257e020eff/src/skills/mcp-builder/SKILL.md at commit 0adf49a8ae84b0ff6e2de8759eea43257e020eff. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Procedure: Four phases, one tool at a time

    1. Agent-centric design. Tools encode workflows, not raw endpoints. Consolidate (scheduleevent checks availability and creates the event). Default to human-readable names over IDs. Errors are educational, not just diagnostic ("retry with filter='activeonly' to reduce results").…

    Agent-centric design. Tools encode workflows, not raw endpoints. Consolidate (scheduleevent checks availability and creates the event). Default to human-readable names over IDs. Errors are educational, not just diagnost…Load the protocol. Fetch https://modelcontextprotocol.io/llms-full.txt once into context — the canonical spec.Load the SDK README for the chosen language:
  2. 02

    Phase 1 — Research & plan

    1. Agent-centric design. Tools encode workflows, not raw endpoints. Consolidate (scheduleevent checks availability and creates the event). Default to human-readable names over IDs. Errors are educational, not just diagnostic ("retry with filter='activeonly' to reduce results").…

    Agent-centric design. Tools encode workflows, not raw endpoints. Consolidate (scheduleevent checks availability and creates the event). Default to human-readable names over IDs. Errors are educational, not just diagnost…Load the protocol. Fetch https://modelcontextprotocol.io/llms-full.txt once into context — the canonical spec.Load the SDK README for the chosen language:
  3. 03

    Phase 2 — Implement

    1. Project layout. Python: single .py or modular package; Pydantic v2 with modelconfig. TypeScript: standard package.json + tsconfig.json strict mode; Zod schemas with .strict(). 2. Shared utilities first. API request helper with retry/timeout, error formatter, JSON-vs-Markdown…

    Project layout. Python: single .py or modular package; Pydantic v2 with modelconfig. TypeScript: standard package.json + tsconfig.json strict mode; Zod schemas with .strict().Shared utilities first. API request helper with retry/timeout, error formatter, JSON-vs-Markdown response builder, pagination cursor handling, auth/token cache.Per tool:
  4. 04

    Phase 3 — Review & test

    1. Code-quality pass: DRY across tools, shared helpers extracted, consistent response shapes, all external calls have error handling, full type coverage. 2. Build & syntax: - Python: python -m pycompile server.py. - TypeScript: npm run build; verify dist/index.js. 3. Run the ser…

    Code-quality pass: DRY across tools, shared helpers extracted, consistent response shapes, all external calls have error handling, full type coverage.Build & syntax:Python: python -m pycompile server.py.
  5. 05

    Phase 4 — Evaluations (10-question harness)

    Each evaluation is a question the agent must answer using only the new tools.

    Each evaluation is a question the agent must answer using only the new tools.Requirements per question — independent, read-only, complex (multiple tool calls), realistic, verifiable (string-comparable answer), stable (answer does not drift over time).Process: enumerate the tools, explore READ-ONLY data, draft 10 questions, solve each yourself first to confirm the answer is reachable and stable.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score91/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars7SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
event4u-app/agent-config
Skill path
src/skills/mcp-builder/SKILL.md
Commit
0adf49a8ae84b0ff6e2de8759eea43257e020eff
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

mcp-builder

Author MCP servers that LLMs can drive end-to-end. The quality bar is can the agent finish the workflow, not does the endpoint return 200. This skill is the server-author counterpart to the existing mcp consumer skill.

When to use

  • Wrapping an external API or service as MCP tools for an LLM client.
  • Adding tools to an existing MCP server (Python FastMCP or TypeScript SDK).
  • Reviewing an MCP server before shipping — Phase 4 evaluation gate below.

Do NOT use when:

  • You only need to call an MCP server — route to mcp.
  • The integration belongs in the host process — write a regular service, not an MCP server.
  • The "server" wraps one endpoint with no workflow — a CLI wrapper is enough.

Procedure: Four phases, one tool at a time

Phase 1 — Research & plan

  1. Agent-centric design. Tools encode workflows, not raw endpoints. Consolidate (schedule_event checks availability and creates the event). Default to human-readable names over IDs. Errors are educational, not just diagnostic ("retry with filter='active_only' to reduce results").
  2. Load the protocol. Fetch https://modelcontextprotocol.io/llms-full.txt once into context — the canonical spec.
  3. Load the SDK README for the chosen language:
    • Python: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/modelcontextprotocol/python-sdk/main/README.md
    • TypeScript: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/modelcontextprotocol/typescript-sdk/main/README.md
  4. Read the target service's API docs in full — auth, rate limits, pagination, error codes, schemas. Skipping this produces incomplete mocks (see testing-anti-patterns § Anti-Pattern 4).
  5. Write the plan: tool list with priority, shared utilities (request helper, pagination, formatter), input/output schemas, error strategy, response-detail levels (concise vs detailed), character limits (default 25 000 tokens).

Phase 2 — Implement

  1. Project layout. Python: single .py or modular package; Pydantic v2 with model_config. TypeScript: standard package.json + tsconfig.json strict mode; Zod schemas with .strict().
  2. Shared utilities first. API request helper with retry/timeout, error formatter, JSON-vs-Markdown response builder, pagination cursor handling, auth/token cache.
  3. Per tool:
    • Input schema (Pydantic / Zod) with constraints, descriptions, and examples.
    • One-line summary + detailed docstring covering purpose, parameters, return shape, when-to-use, when-NOT-to-use, error handling.
    • Tool annotations: readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint.
    • Async/await for all I/O. Honor pagination. Truncate to the character limit and signal truncation in the response.

Phase 3 — Review & test

  1. Code-quality pass: DRY across tools, shared helpers extracted, consistent response shapes, all external calls have error handling, full type coverage.
  2. Build & syntax:
    • Python: python -m py_compile server.py.
    • TypeScript: npm run build; verify dist/index.js.
  3. Run the server safely. MCP servers block on stdio. Either run inside tmux and drive from the harness, or wrap with timeout 5s python server.py for a smoke check. Do NOT block your own session by running it in-process.

Phase 4 — Evaluations (10-question harness)

Each evaluation is a question the agent must answer using only the new tools.

Requirements per question — independent, read-only, complex (multiple tool calls), realistic, verifiable (string-comparable answer), stable (answer does not drift over time).

<evaluation>
  <qa_pair>
    <question>...</question>
    <answer>...</answer>
  </qa_pair>
  <!-- 9 more -->
</evaluation>

Process: enumerate the tools, explore READ-ONLY data, draft 10 questions, solve each yourself first to confirm the answer is reachable and stable.

Output format

  1. The server source plus the 10-question evaluation XML.
  2. A README with: install, env vars, transport mode (stdio / sse / http), example tool call.
  3. A line in agents/settings/contexts/skills-provenance.yml if the server was forked from an upstream, or a note that it was authored from scratch.

Gotcha

  • "Wrap every endpoint" is the failure mode — agents cannot orchestrate 60 thin tools as well as 12 workflow tools.
  • Returning the full upstream payload blows the agent's context. Default to a concise shape with an opt-in detailed mode.
  • Pydantic / Zod descriptions are the only documentation the LLM sees at runtime — write them like usage docs, not comments.
  • A server that hangs your session usually means stdio transport ran in the main process — move it under tmux or use a timeout.
  • Inflated token claims are not credible without an evaluation harness — Phase 4 is the validation gate, not optional.

Do NOT

  • Do NOT mirror REST routes 1:1.
  • Do NOT use any (TypeScript) or untyped dict (Python) in tool I/O.
  • Do NOT skip the 10-question evaluation — Phase 4 IS the quality bar.
  • Do NOT run the MCP server in your main process during testing — it will block.
  • Do NOT log tokens, API keys, or full request bodies — sanitize before logging.

Auto-trigger keywords

  • mcp server
  • model context protocol
  • fastmcp
  • mcp builder
  • agent-centric tools

Provenance

Encode usage policy in the description

Workflow sequencing, preconditions, ID/output provenance ("copy ids verbatim, never from memory"), a mandatory "why" intent field, and turn-end contracts belong INSIDE this artifact's description/frontmatter — where they fire at the decision point — not in always-on prose. See tool-description-as-policy.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing