A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceSearch and discover 3,500+ AI tools, MCP servers, and Claude Skills with community ratings. Find the best tools by category, compatibility, and real user reviews.
3
134
MIT
LegalAIMCP Directory
Server Details
Search a curated directory of AI tools and MCP servers for law firms. Read-only, free, no auth.
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching tools, listing categories, and getting detailed info for a specific tool. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_legal_ai_tools, list_legal_ai_categories, get_legal_ai_tool.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools are appropriate for a directory server, covering search, category browsing, and detail retrieval without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the main directory functions (search, list categories, get details). A minor gap is the lack of a 'list all tools' function, but search can approximate that.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_legal_ai_toolGet one legal AI toolARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the full listing for one legal AI tool by its slug, including the complete description and MCP install command. Use after search_legal_ai_tools to go deeper on a specific result.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Listing slug, e.g. "harvey-ai" — taken from a search result |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tool | No | The listing, present when found is true |
| found | Yes | False when no published listing has this slug |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'complete description and MCP install command', giving concrete behavioral details 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, high annotation coverage, and an existing output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the slug parameter. The description mentions 'by its slug' but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's explanation and example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get), resource (legal AI tool), and distinguishing details (by slug, includes complete description and MCP install command). It also explicitly positions itself after search_legal_ai_tools, differentiating from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after search_legal_ai_tools to go deeper on a specific result', providing clear when-to-use guidance and an exclusion for search functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_legal_ai_categoriesList practice-area categoriesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the practice-area categories in the legalaimcp.com directory, with how many published tools each contains. Useful for orienting before a search.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total published tools in the directory |
| categories | Yes | All practice-area categories |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds that it lists categories with counts, consistent with annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no waste. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (categories with counts). No gaps for the intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies; description adds no param info but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists practice-area categories and their tool counts. Differentiates from sibling tools (get_legal_ai_tool and search_legal_ai_tools) by focusing on categories rather than specific tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Useful for orienting before a search,' providing clear context for when to use. While it doesn't contrast with siblings, the usage scenario is clear and sufficient for this simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_legal_ai_toolsRecommend legal AI tools for a firmARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Rank legal AI tools by fit for a specific practice area and firm size, with a score and the matched factors behind it. Use this instead of search_legal_ai_tools when someone describes their firm (e.g. "solo family law practice" or "20-attorney litigation firm") and wants a recommendation, not just a list.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of recommendations to return (1-5, default 5) | |
| firm_size | Yes | Firm size: solo, small (2-10 attorneys), mid (11-50), or large (50+) | |
| practice_area | Yes | Practice-area category slug — get slugs from list_legal_ai_categories |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of recommendations returned |
| recommendations | Yes | Ranked highest-fit first. Empty when nothing in the directory matched either input. |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral value beyond those annotations by stating that the tool ranks tools and returns 'a score and the matched factors behind it,' and by framing it as recommendation-oriented rather than list-oriented. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and output; the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, a fully described input schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description completes the picture by clarifying when to choose this tool over its sibling. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has clear semantics, including enum values and defaults for limit. The description reinforces the role of practice area and firm size in determining fit but does not need to add more; the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Rank' and names the resource ('legal AI tools') and the ranking criteria ('fit for a specific practice area and firm size'), and promises a score plus matched factors. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_legal_ai_tools by saying it gives a recommendation rather than just a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this instead of search_legal_ai_tools' and identifies the exact triggering condition: when someone describes their firm and wants a recommendation, not just a list. Concrete examples ('solo family law practice', '20-attorney litigation firm') make the usage boundary easy for an agent to apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_legal_ai_toolsSearch legal AI toolsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the legalaimcp.com directory of AI tools and MCP servers built for law firms. Filter by free-text query, practice-area category, and pricing model. Use this when someone asks what AI tooling exists for legal work such as contract review, legal research, client intake, billing, or compliance.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1–25, default 10) | |
| query | No | Free-text search over tool names, taglines, and descriptions, e.g. "contract review" | |
| pricing | No | Pricing-model filter: free, freemium, paid, or contact | |
| category | No | Practice-area filter — get slugs from list_legal_ai_categories |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of tools returned |
| tools | Yes | Matching tools, link-verified listings first |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that results can be filtered by query, category, and pricing, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and schema already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses specific examples. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering capabilities. It could be slightly improved by hinting at pagination or response structure, but the output schema likely handles that. The description is complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the three filter types (free-text, category, pricing), which mirrors the schema's descriptions without adding new meaning or usage nuances. No extra value is provided beyond what the parameter descriptions already offer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the legalaimcp.com directory for AI tools and MCP servers, with specific filter dimensions (free-text, category, pricing). It includes concrete examples like 'contract review' and distinguishes from sibling tools by implying that get_legal_ai_tool retrieves a single tool and list_legal_ai_categories returns category slugs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this when someone asks what AI tooling exists for legal work...', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings beyond the implicit differentiation, which would improve the score to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
recommend_legal_ai_tools2 fields changed- added
Output schema / properties / recommendations / items / properties / pricing_noteAdded value: +{ + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Informational only, never affects rank: paid/contact tiers often bundle dedicated support that a free/freemium pick may not. Ties are broken by cost alone — this lets the requester weigh support separately." +} - changed
Output schema / properties / recommendations / items / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "slug", - "name", - "tagline", - "category", - "category_label", - "pricing_model", - "pricing_details", - "links_verified", - "links_verified_at", - "website", - "repo", - "install_command", - "maker", - "listing_url", - "score", - "matched_factors" -]New value: +[ + "slug", + "name", + "tagline", + "category", + "category_label", + "pricing_model", + "pricing_details", + "links_verified", + "links_verified_at", + "website", + "repo", + "install_command", + "maker", + "listing_url", + "score", + "matched_factors", + "pricing_note" +]
1 tool update
- Added
recommend_legal_ai_tools
3 tool updates
- Changed
get_legal_ai_tool2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Listing slug, e.g. \"harvey-ai\" — taken from a search result URL"New value: +"Listing slug, e.g. \"harvey-ai\" — taken from a search result" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "found": { + "description": "False when no published listing has this slug", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "tool": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "description": "The listing, present when found is true", + "properties": { + "category": { + "description": "Practice-area category slug", + "type": "string" + }, + "category_label": { + "description": "Human-readable category name", + "type": "string" + }, + "description": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Full listing description" + }, + "install_command": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "MCP install command, if the tool ships an MCP server" + }, + "links_verified": { + "description": "True if an automated check confirmed every URL on this listing resolved, as of links_verified_at. An automated link check only — NOT an endorsement, security audit, or legal review.", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "links_verified_at": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "ISO date of the last passing link check; null = not confirmed (often just bot-blocking)" + }, + "listing_url": { + "description": "Canonical listing page on legalaimcp.com", + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Creator or vendor name" + }, + "name": { + "description": "Tool name", + "type": "string" + }, + "pricing_details": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Pricing notes, if any" + }, + "pricing_model": { + "description": "One of: free, freemium, paid, contact", + "type": "string" + }, + "repo": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Source repository, if open source" + }, + "slug": { + "description": "Stable listing identifier — pass to get_legal_ai_tool", + "type": "string" + }, + "tagline": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "One-line summary" + }, + "website": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Tool website" + } + }, + "required": [ + "slug", + "name", + "tagline", + "category", + "category_label", + "pricing_model", + "pricing_details", + "links_verified", + "links_verified_at", + "website", + "repo", + "install_command", + "maker", + "listing_url", + "description" + ], + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "found" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
list_legal_ai_categories1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "categories": { + "description": "All practice-area categories", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "count": { + "description": "Published tools in this category", + "type": "number" + }, + "label": { + "description": "Human-readable category name", + "type": "string" + }, + "slug": { + "description": "Pass as `category` to search_legal_ai_tools", + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "slug", + "label", + "count" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "total": { + "description": "Total published tools in the directory", + "type": "number" + } + }, + "required": [ + "total", + "categories" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
search_legal_ai_tools5 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"Practice area filter"New value: +"Practice-area filter — get slugs from list_legal_ai_categories" - added
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of results to return (1–25, default 10)" - changed
Input schema / properties / pricing / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pricing model filter"New value: +"Pricing-model filter: free, freemium, paid, or contact" - changed
Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Free-text search over tool names and taglines, e.g. \"contract review\""New value: +"Free-text search over tool names, taglines, and descriptions, e.g. \"contract review\"" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#", + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "count": { + "description": "Number of tools returned", + "type": "number" + }, + "tools": { + "description": "Matching tools, link-verified listings first", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": false, + "properties": { + "category": { + "description": "Practice-area category slug", + "type": "string" + }, + "category_label": { + "description": "Human-readable category name", + "type": "string" + }, + "install_command": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "MCP install command, if the tool ships an MCP server" + }, + "links_verified": { + "description": "True if an automated check confirmed every URL on this listing resolved, as of links_verified_at. An automated link check only — NOT an endorsement, security audit, or legal review.", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "links_verified_at": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "ISO date of the last passing link check; null = not confirmed (often just bot-blocking)" + }, + "listing_url": { + "description": "Canonical listing page on legalaimcp.com", + "type": "string" + }, + "maker": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Creator or vendor name" + }, + "name": { + "description": "Tool name", + "type": "string" + }, + "pricing_details": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Pricing notes, if any" + }, + "pricing_model": { + "description": "One of: free, freemium, paid, contact", + "type": "string" + }, + "repo": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Source repository, if open source" + }, + "slug": { + "description": "Stable listing identifier — pass to get_legal_ai_tool", + "type": "string" + }, + "tagline": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "One-line summary" + }, + "website": { + "anyOf": [ + { + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } + ], + "description": "Tool website" + } + }, + "required": [ + "slug", + "name", + "tagline", + "category", + "category_label", + "pricing_model", + "pricing_details", + "links_verified", + "links_verified_at", + "website", + "repo", + "install_command", + "maker", + "listing_url" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "count", + "tools" + ], + "type": "object" +}
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_legal_ai_tool - First observed
list_legal_ai_categories - First observed
search_legal_ai_tools
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Search a curated directory of 300+ verified AI agents, MCP servers, and agentic tools.
Independent directory of agentic AI tools — search, compare & recommend via MCP. Read-only.
Search 500+ AI products, models, agents and orgs with explainable scores. Read-only MCP for Atlaxy.
Find, compare, and audit software for AI agents. Scored registry of tools and MCP servers.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server that enables AI clients to search a knowledge base and retrieve complete source documents via narrow search and fetch tools.2-
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceUniversal search engine for AI agents. Discover products, services, and businesses across every category. 10 MCP tools, zero LLM calls, millisecond responses.114AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceMCP server to search 4,800+ MCP servers, AI agents, CLI tools and agent skills from the A2ASearch directory. Ask Claude: "Find MCP servers for database access".35521MIT