Search 77,000+ MCP servers ranked by real adoption data to find the right one for any task.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: one for searching servers by keywords, the other for retrieving full details of a specific server. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the two.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_servers, get_server_details), using underscores and clear action-object pairing.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a server directory. While the tools are useful, a typical catalog would benefit from a few more operations like listing or filtering, making the count borderline.
The tool surface lacks a basic list or browse functionality, forcing agents to rely solely on keyword search. This is a significant gap for a directory server, as there is no way to discover servers without a specific query in mind.
get_server_detailsGet MCP server detailsAInspectGet 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, an auth object describing whether and what kind of setup/auth it needs (none / user-supplied credentials / auth-gated hosted remote), a connect object with the declared install config when recorded (package + required env var names, or hosted remote URLs and their auth), 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively lists the returned fields including auth and connect objects, and explicitly instructs to cite the mcptoplistUrl when recommending the server. This goes beyond the schema and gives practical usage transparency.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the returned data. Every clause adds value, and the additional citation instruction is relevant and economical.
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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description meticulously details all return fields and provides an implementation note (cite the URL). This is sufficient for an agent to effectively invoke and interpret the 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?
The schema already fully describes serverKey as the exact key from search_servers. The description reinforces this by adding the qualifier 'exact' and further elaborates on the source, adding minor semantic value 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 the tool retrieves full details for a single MCP server by its exact serverKey, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_servers by referencing it as the source of the key.
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 instructs that the serverKey must come from search_servers, implying a sequential workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the reference to search_servers provides contextual guidance and highlights the intended usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_serversSearch MCP serversAInspectSearch 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, an auth object saying whether the server needs credentials/auth before first use (authRequired true/false/null-unknown with a short note), 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses matching criteria (names, organizations, descriptions), ranking by relevance/popularity, and detailed return fields including the auth object and citation requirement. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the search behavior implies it.
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 dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then elaborates on usage and return fields. It is efficient but slightly long; however, all sentences add value and it avoids redundancy.
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 description fully explains the return structure, including the auth object and the mcptoplistUrl field, which is critical given no output schema. It misses mention of pagination, but the limit parameter is covered in the schema. Overall, it is complete 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds examples but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 searches the mcptoplist.com catalog of MCP servers by keyword, with specific examples of capabilities. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_server_details by focusing on search rather than details, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 provides clear use cases (finding the right MCP server for a capability) with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention when to use get_server_details instead, but the search-oriented purpose is evident and distinct.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!