MCP subregistry (GET /v0.1/servers). Only live kind=mcp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Servers per page. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor of the next page, from `metadata.next_cursor`. | |
| search | No | Free text over the server's name and description. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Opaque cursor of the next page, from `metadata.next_cursor`."Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +30Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Servers per page."Input schema / properties / search / descriptionAdded value: +"Free text over the server's name and description."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the HTTP method and a filtering behavior, but omits details like pagination mechanics, error cases, or authorization needs. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that packs the endpoint and a key constraint. No wasted words; efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple paginated list operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filter. It could mention pagination behavior or return structure, but the schema provides cursor semantics. Overall sufficient for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 all three parameters (limit, cursor, search). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists MCP servers via a specific endpoint and includes a filter ('Only live kind=mcp'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_listings by resource, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing MCP servers but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listing tools like list_listings or list_comments. It lacks exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but list_listings and list_mcp_servers overlap since both return listings, with the latter being a filtered subset. This minor ambiguity could cause occasional misselection.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun snake_case (create_listing, get_listing, like_listing), but several are bare nouns (billing, contact, health) or compound nouns (api_index), breaking the consistent pattern and reducing predictability.
12 tools is well-scoped for a registry server covering listings, comments, likes, billing, and health. Each tool has a clear purpose and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The listing lifecycle is incomplete: create, get, like, and list exist, but there is no update or delete for listings. Additionally, only list_comments is available—no create, edit, or delete for comments—creating notable workflow gaps.