engineering/skills/mcp-server-builder/SKILL.md
Design and ship production-ready MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers from OpenAPI contracts instead of hand-written tool wrappers. Python and TypeScript support, schema validation, safe evolution. Use when exposing an existing API as an MCP server, building tool integrations for Claude or Codex or Cursor, or scaffolding an MCP project from scratch.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills mcp-server-builderInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Tier: POWERFUL
Category: Engineering
Domain: AI / API Integration
Use this skill to design and ship production-ready MCP servers from API contracts instead of hand-written one-off tool wrappers. It focuses on fast scaffolding, schema quality, validation, and safe evolution.
The workflow supports both Python and TypeScript MCP implementations and treats OpenAPI as the source of truth.
python3 scripts/openapi_to_mcp.py \
--input openapi.json \
--server-name billing-mcp \
--language python \
--output-dir ./out \
--format text
Supports stdin as well:
cat openapi.json | python3 scripts/openapi_to_mcp.py --server-name billing-mcp --language typescript
Run validator before integration tests:
python3 scripts/mcp_validator.py --input out/tool_manifest.json --strict --format text
Checks include duplicate names, invalid schema shape, missing descriptions, empty required fields, and naming hygiene.
code, message, details) for agent recovery.python3 scripts/openapi_to_mcp.py --help
--inputpython3 scripts/mcp_validator.py --help
get__v1__users___id)operationId as canonical tool name when available.Choose the server approach per constraint:
Before publishing a manifest:
tool_manifest.json and review diffs in PR.tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.