Claude Registry Plugin Catalog
Server Details
Search and install Claude Code plugins from the ClaudeRegistry marketplace (read-only).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: get_plugin retrieves a specific plugin's details, list_categories provides category overview, and search_plugins finds plugins by keyword/category. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_plugin, list_categories, search_plugins.
Three tools are well-scoped for a plugin catalog, covering the core read operations without redundancy.
Covers searching, browsing categories, and retrieving details, but lacks an explicit 'list all plugins' endpoint; however, search with empty query may fill that gap.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_pluginGet a Claude Code pluginARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the full details of a single ClaudeRegistry plugin by its id, including install commands and component counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the plugin id, e.g. "sql-safety-net" |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| name | Yes | |
| tags | Yes | keywords from the marketplace entry |
| agents | Yes | relative paths to agent files |
| author | No | |
| counts | Yes | component counts |
| skills | Yes | relative paths to skill manifests |
| license | No | |
| version | No | |
| category | No | |
| commands | Yes | relative paths to command files |
| homepage | No | |
| description | No | |
| installCommand | Yes | command to install this plugin |
| searchableText | Yes | lowercased text used for matching |
| installMarketplace | Yes | command to add the marketplace to Claude Code |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns install commands and component counts, providing some behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and scope without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and clear.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional information is needed.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' parameter well. The description mentions 'by its id' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's example.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full details of a single ClaudeRegistry plugin', and the scope 'by its id'. It also specifies what is included ('install commands and component counts'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_categories and search_plugins.
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 using this tool when you have a specific plugin id and need full details, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools provide context, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesList plugin categoriesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the distinct plugin categories in the ClaudeRegistry marketplace with a count of plugins in each, plus the total plugin count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | total number of plugins |
| categories | Yes | categories sorted by descending plugin count |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specifics about output (counts, total), which goes beyond annotations.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is essential.
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?
Given output schema exists and no parameters, description fully covers tool behavior and output.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.
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 distinct plugin categories with counts and total plugin count, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools get_plugin and search_plugins.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer. Sibling tool names provide some implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_pluginsSearch Claude Code pluginsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the ClaudeRegistry marketplace of Claude Code plugins by keyword and/or category. Returns matches with their install command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | keywords, e.g. "database migration" | |
| category | No | e.g. "database", "devops", "git" |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | up to 15 matching plugins, best matches first |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include the install command, which is useful but minimal beyond annotations. No mention of pagination or limits.
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?
One sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the action (Search) and result (returns matches). Highly efficient.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional string parameters and no enums. Output schema exists. The description sufficiently explains purpose and result format for a search 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameters (keyword and/or category) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.
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 it searches the ClaudeRegistry marketplace by keyword and/or category, returning matches with install commands. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plugin (specific plugin) and list_categories (list categories).
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 explains how to use (by keyword and/or category) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plugin or list_categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!