pleaseai/mcp-dev
Guide for creating high-quality MCP servers with best practices, TypeScript/Python patterns, and evaluation tools
64
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly identifies its niche (MCP server development) and provides explicit trigger guidance with framework-specific terms. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions it covers (e.g., defining tools, handling resources, configuring transports) rather than staying at a high level.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'defining tools and resources, handling authentication, configuring transports, structuring server code' to improve specificity.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (MCP servers) and a general action ('creating high-quality MCP servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services'), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like defining tools, handling authentication, setting up transport layers, etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (creating high-quality MCP servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools) and 'when' (explicitly states 'Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK)'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'MCP', 'Model Context Protocol', 'MCP servers', 'FastMCP', 'MCP SDK', 'external APIs', 'Python', 'Node', 'TypeScript', and 'tools'. These cover the main variations a user building MCP servers would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | MCP server development is a very specific niche with distinct terminology (Model Context Protocol, FastMCP, MCP SDK). It's unlikely to conflict with general coding skills or other integration-related skills due to the specificity of the protocol. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured skill that serves as an effective overview and orchestration document for MCP server development, with strong progressive disclosure to reference files. Its main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (explaining rationale Claude doesn't need), limited actionability in the main file itself (most concrete guidance is deferred), and insufficient validation/feedback loops in the workflow for what is a complex, multi-step development process.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable code snippets for at least one complete minimal MCP tool registration in the main SKILL.md (both TypeScript and Python) rather than deferring all code to reference files.
Add explicit validation checkpoints with feedback loops in Phase 2 and Phase 3, e.g., 'After implementing each tool: test with Inspector → verify response format → fix errors → re-test before proceeding.'
Trim the explanatory text in Phase 1.1 (API Coverage vs Workflow Tools, Context Management) — these are design philosophy discussions Claude can reason about without being told.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill contains some unnecessary explanation (e.g., explaining why TypeScript is recommended with multiple justifications, explaining what MCP is when Claude would know). The phased structure adds organizational overhead, and some sections like 'Understand Modern MCP Design' explain concepts at a level Claude doesn't need. However, it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides structured guidance and some concrete details (XML format example, specific commands like `npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector`), but most implementation guidance is deferred to reference files. The core SKILL.md itself contains mostly checklists and abstract descriptions rather than executable code examples for the actual MCP server implementation patterns. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The four-phase workflow is clearly sequenced and logically ordered, but validation checkpoints are weak. Phase 3 mentions build/test but lacks explicit feedback loops (e.g., what to do if build fails, how to verify tools work correctly before moving to Phase 4). For a multi-step process involving code generation and API integration, the absence of explicit validate-fix-retry loops is a gap. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill effectively uses a hub-and-spoke model with clear references to language-specific guides, best practices, evaluation guide, and external SDK documentation. References are well-signaled with emoji markers and descriptive summaries of what each file contains. The Reference Files section at the end provides a clean navigation index. All references appear to be one level deep. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents