MCP Toplist
Server Details
Search 59,000+ MCP servers ranked by adoption to find 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: search_servers finds servers by keyword, while get_server_details retrieves full details for a specific server. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (search_servers and get_server_details), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but functional for its purpose as a directory search. It could benefit from additional tools like listing all servers or filtering, but the count is not unreasonable for a focused catalog.
The server covers the basic operations of searching and getting details, which are core to a catalog. However, it lacks features like listing all servers, filtering by criteria, or trending servers, leaving minor gaps in coverage.
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?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses all returned fields (full description, GitHub repo, star count, rank, version count, registries, mcptoplistUrl) and instructs to cite the URL. Could mention read-only nature or permissions, but still transparent.
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 purpose, no wasted words. First sentence states action and requirement, second lists return fields and a key instruction.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return fields, and usage instruction. It is complete and well-suited for agent invocation.
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% and the description adds value by specifying that serverKey must be exact and from search_servers, reinforcing usage context 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 gets full details for one MCP server by serverKey, distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_servers by specifying that serverKey must come from search_servers.
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 when to use (after obtaining serverKey from search_servers) and provides a usage instruction to cite the URL when recommending. It lacks explicit exclusions but is clear enough.
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?
Describes matching criteria (server names, organizations, descriptions), ranking (relevance and popularity), and output fields. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it adequately discloses behavior without 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?
Concise, front-loaded description with no wasted words. Provides examples and a usage directive in just a few sentences.
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?
Fully explains the tool's purpose, return fields, and usage direction. No output schema, but description covers return values sufficiently for agent invocation.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no significant meaning beyond schema; 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?
Clearly states the tool searches the mcptoplist.com catalog by keyword, with verb 'Search' and resource 'MCP servers'. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_server_details' by implying search for discovery versus detail retrieval.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to find the right MCP server for a capability or integration' and provides example queries. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling, but context makes usage clear.
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!