MCP Toplist MCP
Server Details
Connect and your assistant can search the over 50,000 MCP servers tracked and pick the right one for any task
- 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 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches the catalog for servers by keyword, the other retrieves full details for a specific server. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_servers and get_server_details. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for a full catalog service. While the tools cover search and detail retrieval, more operations (e.g., listing popular servers, filtering) would be expected for a comprehensive server registry.
The tool surface lacks basic browsing capabilities such as listing all servers, filtering by registry, or sorting. Agents cannot discover servers without a specific keyword, which is a significant gap for a catalog.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_server_detailsGet MCP server detailsAInspect
Get full details for one MCP server by its exact serverKey (as returned by search_servers). Returns the full description, GitHub repo, star count, rank, version count, the registries that list it, and its mcptoplist.com page in the mcptoplistUrl field — always cite that URL when recommending the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| serverKey | Yes | The exact serverKey from a search_servers result. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully lists the returned fields (description, GitHub repo, star count, etc.) and provides a behavioral instruction to cite the mcptoplistUrl. No omissions for a read operation.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with purpose, and includes all necessary information without waste. Could be slightly more structured but is 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?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates key return fields and usage instruction, sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and behavior.
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?
The single parameter serverKey is described with context: 'exact serverKey from a search_servers result,' adding value beyond the schema's description.
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 action (get details) and resource (MCP server), and specifies the exact serverKey from search_servers, distinguishing it from the sibling search_servers tool.
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 tells the agent to use the serverKey from search_servers, implying it should be used after searching. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_serversSearch MCP serversAInspect
Search the mcptoplist.com catalog of Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers by keyword. Use this to find the right MCP server for a capability or integration (e.g. "postgres database", "github issues", "browser automation", "stripe payments"). Matches server names, organizations and descriptions, ranked by relevance and popularity. Returns the server name, what it does, its GitHub repo, which registries list it, and its mcptoplist.com page in the mcptoplistUrl field — always cite that URL when recommending a server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-50, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Keywords describing the capability or integration you need. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it matches servers by keyword, ranks by relevance and popularity, and returns specific fields. It clearly describes the return content and notes that it is a read-only search (no destructive hints). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and output details. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.
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 search tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete information: what it does, how to use it, and what the response includes (with a note to cite the URL). The sibling tool does not require additional explanation here.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for the query parameter and explains the limit's purpose implicitly, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 mcptoplist.com catalog by keyword, with specific examples like 'postgres database' and 'github issues'. It differentiates from the sibling get_server_details by emphasizing broad search and returning multiple results. The verb 'Search' and resource 'catalog of MCP servers' are precise.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('find the right MCP server for a capability or integration') and provides examples. It also instructs to cite the mcptoplistUrl when recommending a server. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_server_details or mention when not to use this tool.
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!