Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

mcp-inspector(MCP inspector 搜索)

mcp-inspector 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

mcp-inspector 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 62,606。

总安装 329周安装 14GitHub Stars 1,912下载 115核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:mcp-inspector(MCP inspector 搜索)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mcpjam/inspector
仓库路径:skills/mcp-inspector
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mcpjam/inspector --skill mcp-inspector
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mcpjam/inspector --skill mcp-inspector

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

mcp-inspector 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,支持关键词快速定位。它适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据任务场景获取候选结果。使用 npx skills add 命令从指定仓库安装并调用该技能。安装前应确认权限范围和维护状态,避免触发不必要的网络请求。

建议优先验证最小权限,防止数据泄露或越权访问。

来源仓库内路径:skills/mcp-inspector

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/mcpjam/inspector --skill mcp-inspector;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要接触敏感数据,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

mcp-inspector 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/mcpjam/inspector --skill mcp-inspector。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

mcp-inspector 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

mcp-inspector 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

mcp-inspector 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

mcp-inspector 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 329 次,近一周安装 14 次,下载 115 次,GitHub 1,912 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

mcp-inspector 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 来源仓库有 1,912 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
mcp-inspector

MCP inspector 搜索 · 本页

3291,912接触敏感数据未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

MCPJam CLI Investigation

Use this skill when analyzing MCP server behavior from mcpjam or MCP Inspector output. The goal is to separate:

  • real protocol issues
  • interoperability warnings
  • implementation polish
  • mcpjam or SDK artifacts

Interactive use

When the user wants to connect to a server and use it:

  1. Probe the server first: server probe --url <url> --quiet --format json.
  • Use the probe to learn auth posture, resource metadata, authorization-server metadata, and registration strategies before assuming the connected surface is public.
  1. If the probe shows oauth_required, authenticate with oauth login --credentials-out <path> or run oauth conformance --credentials-out <path> when the task is specifically to test the OAuth flow.
  2. Discover tools: tools list --url <url> --credentials-file <path> --quiet --format json.
  • Tools with _meta.ui.resourceUri, deprecated _meta["ui/resourceUri"], or openai/outputTemplate in toolsMetadata have interactive UI.
  • For a specific tool, check toolsMetadata.<toolName>._meta.ui.resourceUri, toolsMetadata.<toolName>._meta["ui/resourceUri"], or toolsMetadata.<toolName>["openai/outputTemplate"].
  1. Execute a tool: tools call --url <url> --tool-name <name> --tool-args <json> --credentials-file <path>.
  2. Execute with UI: tools call --url <url> --tool-name <name> --tool-args <json> --credentials-file <path> --ui.
  • --ui starts or attaches to the local Inspector backend and renders the completed result in App Builder.
  • In non-TTY, agent, and CI runs, --ui does not open a browser by default. Pass --open when the CLI should open App Builder itself.
  • --open opens a system browser URL; it does not attach an already-controlled automation browser or make fresh tabs hydrate an injected render. Use --no-open when browser automation already opened Inspector App Builder. Use --attach-only when startup, browser opening, and discovery must all be disallowed.
  • no_active_client means the Inspector backend may be running but no browser client is attached. If manual recovery is needed, use mcpjam inspector open, not mcpjam inspector start.
  • unknown_server in the root error.code or an inspectorRender.commands.*.error.code means Inspector could not match the requested server. If the message says App Builder is focused on another server, retry with --server-name <focused-name>.
  • Treat UI success as inspectorRender.status === "rendered", not exit code 0 alone. If the render is skipped, branch on inspectorRender.remediation or the stable root warning.code.
  • Use --require-render when the UI render itself is the deliverable and a skipped render should fail the command.
  • Do not require external screenshots as proof of render success; iframe/canvas content can defeat browser snapshot tools. Prefer inspectorRender.status, command responses, and snapshot evidence.
  • Use --ui only when the tool has UI metadata or the user explicitly asks to see UI.

When the user asks to investigate, audit, or triage, use the Investigation workflow below.

Default stance

  • Treat raw request/response evidence as higher trust than normalized CLI convenience output.
  • Separate observations, compliance issues, and security findings. They are related, but not interchangeable.
  • Map claims to spec strength: MUST and MUST NOT are strong conformance signals; SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are softer guidance; MAY and optional fields are usually informational.
  • Do not label a security finding high unless you can support a concrete attacker benefit or clear breakage path.
  • When evidence is ambiguous, lower confidence or use pending before overstating the conclusion.

Investigation workflow

  1. Start with the narrowest command that actually proves the claim.
  2. If the command may fail, you want a reusable handoff artifact, or CI should retain evidence, add --debug-out <path> to server probe, server validate, tools call, or oauth login.
  3. If the probe shows oauth_required and the task is to inspect the server surface, continue with oauth login or another supported auth flow to obtain reusable credentials before judging post-auth behavior. For multi-command connected sessions, use --credentials-out <path> on oauth login, oauth conformance, or oauth conformance-suite to persist tokens and --credentials-file <path> on later commands; read references/cli-surface-notes.md for access-token-only exceptions. When a token is already available (CI, M2M, env var), prefer a credentials file when possible and pass --access-token or --oauth-access-token only as an escape hatch.
  4. After successful auth, inspect the connected surface with direct commands such as server info, server capabilities, tools list, resources list/read/templates, and prompts list/get.
  5. Use server doctor --out <path> when you need one breadth-first snapshot instead of several single-purpose command outputs.
  6. If the output came from server doctor or a --debug-out artifact, split it into primary command evidence, probe evidence, and connected-sweep evidence.
  7. If the claim is specifically about MCP Apps tool metadata or ui:// resources, start with apps conformance --quiet --format json before dropping to tools list or resources read.
  8. If the claim is about a tool result rendering in Inspector, use tools call --tool-name <name> --tool-args <json|@file|-> --ui --quiet --format json.
  • In non-TTY runs, add --open if no Inspector browser client is already attached.
  • If browser automation already opened http://127.0.0.1:6274/#app-builder, add --no-open; --open launches a system browser and may not target the automation-controlled client.
  • Confirm UI delivery with inspectorRender.status === "rendered". Treat inspectorRender.remediation and stable skipped-render warning.code values as recovery hints, not MCP tool failures.
  • If unknown_server appears in the root error or command errors and the message names the focused server, retry with --server-name <focused-name>.
  • Use --require-render when a skipped render should become a hard error instead of a warning.
  1. If a field may be CLI-added or SDK-normalized, read references/cli-surface-notes.md before concluding anything.
  2. If the claim depends on MCP semantics, read references/mcp-2025-11-25-interpretation.md.
  3. If the task involves security review, read references/security-best-practices.md for the full checklist and follow the security review workflow below.
  4. Write the result using the output contract below.

Security review workflow

Use this when the task is to assess an MCP server's security posture. All checks use existing CLI commands. No special security tooling is needed. Do not assume every server should require auth.

Phase 1: Observe (read-only)

Run server probe --url <target> --quiet --format json first. Add oauth metadata or server doctor --out <path> only when they clarify the picture.

  • Record an initial auth signal:

- full-auth candidate: probe status is oauth_required - public-or-mixed candidate: probe status is ready - unknown: probe is only reachable, error, or otherwise ambiguous

  • Capture discovery facts:

- OAuth metadata URLs and whether they point to public, private, or suspicious targets - scopes_supported, WWW-Authenticate, and PKCE methods - registration strategies such as dcr, cimd, and preregistered

  • Record the evidence surface you are trusting. Raw probe/RPC evidence beats doctor summaries or convenience fields.
  • Phase 1 can produce observations and compliance notes. By itself it should not produce a high security severity.

Phase 2: Provoke (behavior, still mostly unauth)

Treat the Phase 1 auth signal as provisional until behavior confirms it.

  • For a full-auth candidate:

- run DCR shape probes if DCR is supported - spot-check representative unauth tools list or tools call behavior when feasible - check malformed, expired, or obviously wrong-audience token handling without overstating what a rejection proves

  • For a public-or-mixed candidate:

- run unauth tools list - classify exposed tools as read-only, write, or side-effect - call representative public tools unauth - check whether gated tools fail with a clean auth challenge instead of silent empty data or partial data

  • Anonymous tiers, rate limits, or degraded public access are posture notes, not a separate posture class.
  • Reclassify to one of no-auth, full-auth, mixed-auth, or unknown once Phase 2 behavior is clear. If Phase 2 contradicts Phase 1, update the posture and rerun the relevant checks instead of forcing the old classification.
  • Input-validation hits from Phase 2 cap at medium security severity until Phase 3 proves attacker benefit.
  • Design or posture findings can be real security findings in Phase 2, but do not auto-promote them. Document the unsafe behavior, abuse path, and any owner-intent uncertainty before calling them medium or high.

Phase 3: Exploit or confirm attacker benefit

Use oauth login and the same browser session when the proof depends on consent or cookies.

  • Use Phase 3 to turn a plausible concern into a real end-to-end security finding:

- DCR plus authorization flow proof - redirect URI exact-match bypass proof - foreign-token acceptance or token passthrough proof - code, token, or cross-tenant data capture

  • Consent skip is one route to high, not the only route. Any demonstrated chain that shows concrete attacker gain can justify high.

Phase 4: Inventory blast radius

  • After auth succeeds, decode JWT claims, inspect Mcp-Session-Id with raw logs, and enumerate tools, resources, prompts, scopes, and tenant context.
  • Phase 4 is mainly blast-radius calibration. Treat it as context unless you also prove abuse.

Security severity calibration

  • high: demonstrated attacker benefit or conforming-client breakage with direct evidence
  • medium: credible security issue with a concrete attack scenario, but end-to-end proof is still partial
  • low: hardening gap or limited-impact security concern
  • pending: plausible security concern with a specific missing proof step that could materially raise or lower severity
  • info: true observation with no credible attacker benefit yet

Use pending instead of manufacturing a medium or high security severity from a checklist hit.

Command choice

  • server probe: HTTP transport reachability, initialize behavior, and OAuth discovery hints.
  • server doctor: combined triage artifact for probe plus connected behavior. Good for breadth, not always sufficient to prove wire-level behavior by itself.
  • oauth metadata, oauth proxy, oauth debug-proxy: exact endpoint and metadata inspection when conformance output looks surprising.
  • oauth login: obtain reusable credentials and verify the authenticated MCP path. Use --credentials-out <path> to save tokens to disk (mode 0600) so later connected commands can use --credentials-file <path> without manual token extraction; check references/cli-surface-notes.md for commands that require a non-expired access token. Use this when the goal is to inspect a server that requires OAuth, then follow it with connected commands rather than stopping at the login result.
  • oauth conformance, oauth conformance-suite: flow-level auth checks. Treat these as targeted probes, not a complete security review. Use --credentials-out <path> when a passing flow should hand credentials to later connected commands; use --credentials-file <path> after that instead of extracting tokens from JSON output. Raw JSON output redacts OAuth secrets by default. When --conformance-checks is enabled, the command can directly probe DCR non-loopback http:// redirects, invalid client rejection, authorization-endpoint redirect mismatch handling, invalid bearer-token rejection at the MCP server, and token-endpoint redirect mismatch handling.
  • apps conformance: server-side MCP Apps checks for _meta.ui.resourceUri, ui:// resources, resources/read, HTML MIME and payload shape, and _meta.ui metadata. Use this for MCP Apps surface triage.
  • server info, server capabilities, server validate, server ping, server export: connected behavior after initialization and auth.
  • tools list and tools call, resources list/read/templates, prompts list/get/list-multi: direct post-connect capability checks. With --ui, tools call renders the completed tool result in Inspector and reports inspectorRender as UI command/render evidence.
  • Prefer --quiet --format json. Add --rpc when available if you need request and response evidence rather than a summary. Add --debug-out when you need a failure-safe artifact, not as a replacement for raw evidence.
  • Use --reporter junit-xml or --reporter json-summary for CI report artifacts on conformance and diff commands. server validate does not accept --reporter; use --debug-out for validation artifacts. Do not use --format junit-xml; --format is only for raw json or human output.
  • For JSON-valued options, prefer @path or - stdin over shell-escaped inline JSON when payloads are generated or contain quotes. For example: mcpjam tools call --url <target> --tool-name <name> --tool-args @params.json --quiet --format json.

Output contract

General triage output

For non-security tasks, return:

  • Verdict: real issue, interop warning, implementation polish, or scanner/client artifact
  • Severity: high, medium, low, or info
  • Confidence: high, medium, or low
  • Why it matters: one short paragraph tied to interoperability, security, or user impact
  • Evidence: the exact CLI behavior that supports the claim
  • Missing evidence: what would need to be confirmed before raising severity or confidence

Security review output

For each claimed security-review finding, return:

  • Verdict: real issue, interop warning, implementation polish, or scanner/client artifact
  • Compliance severity: high, medium, low, or info
  • Security severity: high, medium, low, info, or pending
  • Confidence: high, medium, or low
  • Attack scenario or pending rationale: if Security severity is medium or high, open with 2-3 sentences answering who the attacker is, what they need, and what they gain; if it is pending, say exactly what proof is missing
  • Verified via: the phase plus exact command or result that supports the claim
  • Evidence: the exact CLI behavior that supports the claim
  • Missing evidence: what would need to be confirmed before raising severity or confidence

Hard rules

  • Never call toolsMetadata an MCP server field.
  • Never use removed app/widget commands for UI rendering. Use tools call --ui; use resources read --resource-uri ui://... for raw resource HTML.
  • Never manually orchestrate Inspector API calls when tools call --ui can drive the render.
  • Never skip tools list discovery when the user names a server but not a specific tool.
  • Never infer prompt support from an empty prompts list unless you have raw RPC evidence that prompts/list was actually sent and answered by the server.
  • Never stop at oauth_required when the user asked to inspect the authenticated server surface and the CLI can complete login. Authenticate and continue with post-login commands when feasible.
  • Never treat a passing apps conformance result as full SEP-1865 conformance. The current command is server-side only and does not prove host lifecycle, sandbox proxy, or postMessage bridge behavior.
  • Never treat missing optional metadata such as outputSchema, content annotations, scopes_supported, or scope hints as a hard failure without a MUST.
  • Separate OAuth RFC violations from MCP profile preferences.
  • Distinguish "the server correctly rejected a bad request" from "the overall design is secure."
  • Treat --debug-out artifacts as aggregated evidence envelopes, not pure wire captures.
  • Never flag missing scopes_supported or missing scope in WWW-Authenticate as a security issue. Both are optional.
  • Never claim a server is "secure" based solely on it rejecting one specific bad input. A single negative test does not prove broader security posture.
  • Never treat a passing oauth_invalid_token or redirect-mismatch probe as proof that the whole authorization design is secure. Those checks only prove the exact case that was sent.
  • Never let a checklist hit assign high security severity by itself.
  • JWT aud mismatch is not token passthrough proof unless you show the server accepts a token issued for a different audience or resource, or otherwise misbinds the token.
  • Supporting plain PKCE is usually hardening only. It cannot compound with attacker-owned-client DCR flows where the attacker chose the verifier.
  • Hostile redirect_uri values are not SSRF unless you show the server fetches them.
  • Public unauthenticated access is not itself a finding. Check whether behavior matches advertised posture and whether exposed surfaces are safe by design.
  • Anonymous trial or rate-limited access is a posture note, not a separate severity finding.
  • When compounding findings, explain the compound attack path. Do not just list unrelated findings and call the combination worse.

Reference map

  • references/cli-surface-notes.md Use for command-specific caveats, artifact shapes, local enrichments, merged errors, and normalized empty arrays.
  • references/mcp-2025-11-25-interpretation.md Use for capability, lifecycle, transport, authorization, tools, resources, and prompts interpretation against the latest MCP spec.
  • references/security-best-practices.md Use for security review checks mapped to CLI commands. Covers SSRF, confused deputy, PKCE, token passthrough, scope minimization, auth-posture checks, and session security. Source: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/tutorials/security/security_best_practices

平台分布

Codex

34.98%
按下载量换算40

Claude

28.97%
按下载量换算33

Cursor

19.82%
按下载量换算23

Gemini CLI

9.16%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

可疑

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills