protogrid
Server Details
Find MCP servers by intent and get exactly how to connect to them right now. No proxying.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 99.9% over 22 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP ยท MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a fairly distinct aspect: probing/readiness (check_server), connection info (get_connection), server metadata (get_server), tool schemas (list_tools), and discovery (search). However, get_server also surfaces 'current tools' and trust/connectability, which overlaps partly with both list_tools and check_server, so boundaries could blur in a few cases.
Most tools use a clean verb_noun pattern (check_server, get_connection, get_server, list_tools), which is predictable and readable. The lone 'search' breaks the pattern by being a bare verb with no noun object, a minor deviation.
Five tools is well-scoped for an MCP server directory/discovery service, and each tool earns its place covering a distinct facet (discovery, lookup, tool listing, connection, quality check). No redundant or filler tools.
The surface covers discovery, server details, tool introspection, connection generation, and quality/readiness probing, which is close to a full lifecycle for a directory service. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit browse/list-all or category/collection endpoint), but search largely compensates.
Available Tools
5 toolscheck_serverCheck an MCP server URLAIdempotentInspect
Probe a remote MCP server URL once, credential-free and without calling its tools, and get its quality checks and its readiness for the Claude and OpenAI directories. Pass url to start a check (waits up to 25 s for the result), or id to read one. Quota: a few checks per hour anonymously, more with an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | A check id returned earlier, to read its result | |
| url | No | The server's streamable HTTP or SSE URL, e.g. https://mcp.example.com/mcp. Never include credentials. | |
| wait | No | Seconds to wait for the result (default 25) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pass as id to read the result later |
| url | Yes | |
| page | Yes | Shareable result page |
| error | No | |
| result | No | Present when status is done |
| server | Yes | The catalog server listing this URL, if any |
| status | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| finished_at | Yes | |
| next_actions | Yes | Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill) |
| requested_at | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context the annotations do not carry: credential-free operation, no tool invocation, a 25 s wait ceiling, and an explicit quota ('a few checks per hour anonymously, more with an API key'). Rate-limit disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral detail the annotations leave open.
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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then how to invoke each mode, then the quota constraint. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.
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 three-parameter read/probe tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description closes the remaining gaps: invocation modes, latency budget, and quota. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the url-vs-id mode choice and the wait behavior that the schema only states as a default. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Probe a remote MCP server URL once') plus the concrete deliverable ('quality checks and its readiness for the Claude and OpenAI directories'). The qualifier 'credential-free and without calling its tools' separates it from siblings like list_tools and get_server without needing their schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit branch: pass `url` to start a check or `id` to read an existing one. It does not, however, say when to reach for check_server rather than the sibling get_server/get_connection, so the guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_connectionGet a connection blockARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Minimal connection block for the preferred remote (or package) with ${SECRET} placeholders, formatted for a target client. Secrets are never accepted or returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Official reverse-DNS name | |
| target | No | Output format (default mcpServers) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Suggested name for the server in the client configuration |
| kind | Yes | |
| class | Yes | R0 remote no auth, R1 static secret, R2 OAuth, L0 local package |
| server | Yes | |
| target | Yes | |
| secrets | Yes | Placeholders to replace with values you hold |
| autonomous | Yes | |
| connection | Yes | The block for the target client: an object for JSON targets, a string for text ones |
| human_steps | Yes | |
| content_type | Yes | |
| next_actions | Yes | Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill) |
| placeholders | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: secrets are never accepted or returned, and secrets appear as ${SECRET} placeholders in the output. This tells the agent it cannot round-trip credentials, which is actionable context.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler. The distinctive constraint (secret placeholders) and the output-shaping purpose (formatted for a target client) are both front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotation set covers safety behavior. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the ${SECRET} placeholder convention and the no-secrets guarantee. Only the missing sibling routing keeps it short of 5.
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% and both parameters are documented there (name as reverse-DNS, target as output format with an enum and default). The description adds only a light gloss ('preferred remote (or package)', 'target client') and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it generates a minimal connection block for a preferred remote/package, formatted for a target client, with ${SECRET} placeholders. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_server (raw server info) and check_server (health check), though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied โ the mention of a 'preferred remote (or package)' and 'target client' hints at when it is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-this-over-get_server guidance. Nothing misleading, but the agent must infer the selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_serverGet a server descriptorARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Official server.json plus connectability (class, remotes with auth/health, packages), current tools, trust breakdown and identity for one server name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Official reverse-DNS name, e.g. io.github.acme/acme-mcp | |
| schemas | No | Include tool input/output schemas (default false; use list_tools for full schemas) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| _meta | Yes | protogrid enrichment next to the official registry metadata |
| server | Yes | The official server.json as published |
| next_actions | Yes | Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result includes auth/health status for remotes, trust breakdown, and identity, which tells the agent this is a rich inspection call rather than a simple existence check.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary output (server.json) and then lists the supplementary payloads. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical is slightly crammed.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it does so helpfully. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the lack of sibling routing guidance is missing.
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% and both parameters (name, schemas) are documented in the schema, including the reverse-DNS format and the note to use list_tools for full schemas. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific resource (the official server descriptor for one server name) and enumerates the payload categories it returns: server.json, connectability, tools, trust breakdown, identity. This is clearly more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check_server, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus check_server, get_connection, or search. The usage is only implied by the list of returned content, and the agent must infer whether this is a cheap lookup or an expensive full fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_toolsList a server's toolsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Every current tool of a server with full input/output schemas, paginated by tool name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Official reverse-DNS name | |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| tools | Yes | |
| server | Yes | |
| next_cursor | Yes | Pass as cursor for the next page; null on the last page |
| next_actions | Yes | Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are paginated and that schemas are returned in full, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose ordering guarantees besides 'by tool name' 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?
A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and scope with no wasted words.
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?
A read-only, paginated list tool. The description covers the return content and pagination, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Missing only the 'limit' parameter meaning, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 67%, with 'name' and 'cursor' documented in the schema; 'limit' has no description. The description repeats the pagination concept but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... tools of a server') and adds scope detail ('full input/output schemas, paginated by tool name'). It does not differentiate from siblings like search, though the resource is distinct enough to be inferred.
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 pagination mention implies iterative use with the cursor, and the framing suggests this is the enumeration endpoint. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., search for filtered lookup), so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch MCP servers by intentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Hybrid (keyword + semantic) search over servers and their tools. Filter by connection class to keep only what you can reach autonomously (R0, R1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | What you want to do, in plain words, e.g. 'send an email' or 'query postgres' | |
| class | No | Connection classes to keep, e.g. ['R0','R1'] | |
| flags | No | Trust flags that must all be present | |
| limit | No | Results to return (default 10) | |
| category | No | ||
| min_trust | No | Minimum trust score 0-100 | |
| transport | No | ||
| min_quality | No | Minimum quality score 0-100; unscored servers are left out | |
| exclude_flags | No | Trust flags, any of which excludes a server, e.g. ['multi-version-spam','duplicate-repo'] | |
| quality_flags | No | Quality flags that must all be present | |
| owner_verified | No | true: only servers whose owner proved control of the namespace (not an audit) | |
| exclude_quality_flags | No | Quality flags, any of which excludes a server, e.g. ['known-vulns'] |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| next_actions | Yes | Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the hybrid keyword+semantic retrieval behavior and the reachability rationale for class filtering, which is modest extra context but does not cover pagination or result ordering.
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 core capability followed by the operational tip. No filler or repetition of structured fields.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the rich schema covers most parameters. The description is adequate for a 12-param search tool, though a word on result ordering or how hybrid ranking behaves would round it out.
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 83%, so most of the 12 parameters are already self-documenting with examples and semantics. The description only echoes the `class` filter idea and adds nothing about the many trust/quality/flag parameters beyond what the schema states.
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?
'Hybrid (keyword + semantic) search over servers and their tools' gives a specific verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_server and list_tools by being the discovery/search entry point, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 second sentence hints at usage: filter by connection class 'to keep only what you can reach autonomously (R0, R1)'. That is a useful intent-level cue but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
1 tool update
- Changed
search7 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / exclude_quality_flagsAdded value: +{ + "description": "Quality flags, any of which excludes a server, e.g. ['known-vulns']", + "items": { + "enum": [ + "known-vulns", + "outdated-mcp-sdk" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" +} - added
Input schema / properties / min_qualityAdded value: +{ + "description": "Minimum quality score 0-100; unscored servers are left out", + "maximum": 100, + "minimum": 0, + "type": "integer" +} - added
Input schema / properties / owner_verifiedAdded value: +{ + "description": "true: only servers whose owner proved control of the namespace (not an audit)", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / quality_flagsAdded value: +{ + "description": "Quality flags that must all be present", + "items": { + "enum": [ + "known-vulns", + "outdated-mcp-sdk" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" +} - added
Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / owner_verifiedAdded value: +{ + "description": "The owner proved control of the namespace; not an audit", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Output schema / properties / results / items / properties / quality_flagsAdded value: +{ + "description": "known-vulns, outdated-mcp-sdk: raised by failing dependency checks", + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" +} - changed
Output schema / properties / results / items / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "name", - "title", - "description", - "connection_class", - "autonomous", - "human_steps", - "categories", - "trust_score", - "trust_flags", - "quality_score", - "quality_label", - "tool_count", - "score", - "matched_tools" -]New value: +[ + "name", + "title", + "description", + "connection_class", + "autonomous", + "human_steps", + "categories", + "trust_score", + "trust_flags", + "quality_score", + "quality_label", + "quality_flags", + "owner_verified", + "tool_count", + "score", + "matched_tools" +]
5 tool updates
- Changed
check_server1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "disclaimer": { + "type": "string" + }, + "error": { + "type": "string" + }, + "finished_at": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "id": { + "description": "Pass as id to read the result later", + "type": "string" + }, + "next_actions": { + "description": "Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill)", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "action": { + "type": "string" + }, + "arguments": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "propertyNames": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "action" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "page": { + "description": "Shareable result page", + "type": "string" + }, + "requested_at": { + "type": "string" + }, + "result": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "description": "Present when status is done", + "properties": { + "probe": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": {}, + "type": "object" + }, + "quality": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "label": { + "type": "string" + }, + "score": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "score", + "label" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "readiness": { + "description": "Claude and OpenAI directory requirements, one per directory; items are pass, warn, fail, unknown, manual or na", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": {}, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "probe", + "quality", + "readiness" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "server": { + "description": "The catalog server listing this URL, if any", + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "status": { + "enum": [ + "queued", + "running", + "done", + "failed" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "url": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "status", + "url", + "requested_at", + "finished_at", + "server", + "page", + "disclaimer", + "next_actions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
get_connection1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "autonomous": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "class": { + "description": "R0 remote no auth, R1 static secret, R2 OAuth, L0 local package", + "enum": [ + "R0", + "R1", + "R2", + "L0", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "connection": { + "description": "The block for the target client: an object for JSON targets, a string for text ones" + }, + "content_type": { + "enum": [ + "application/json", + "text/plain" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "human_steps": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "key": { + "description": "Suggested name for the server in the client configuration", + "type": "string" + }, + "kind": { + "enum": [ + "remote", + "package", + "bundle" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "next_actions": { + "description": "Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill)", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "action": { + "type": "string" + }, + "arguments": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "propertyNames": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "action" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "placeholders": { + "type": "string" + }, + "secrets": { + "description": "Placeholders to replace with values you hold", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "where": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "name", + "where" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "server": { + "type": "string" + }, + "target": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "server", + "key", + "kind", + "class", + "autonomous", + "human_steps", + "target", + "content_type", + "connection", + "secrets", + "placeholders", + "next_actions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
get_server1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "_meta": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "description": "protogrid enrichment next to the official registry metadata", + "properties": { + "dev.protogrid/connectability": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "autonomous": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "class": { + "description": "R0 remote no auth, R1 static secret, R2 OAuth, L0 local package", + "enum": [ + "R0", + "R1", + "R2", + "L0", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "human_steps": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "packages": { + "description": "Packages with runtime hint and required secrets", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": {}, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "remotes": { + "description": "Remotes with transport, auth, protocol and health", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": {}, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "class", + "autonomous", + "human_steps", + "remotes", + "packages" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "dev.protogrid/identity": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "canonical_id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "owner": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "verified": { + "type": "boolean" + } + }, + "required": [ + "verified" + ], + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "canonical_id", + "owner" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "dev.protogrid/quality": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "checks": {}, + "label": { + "type": "string" + }, + "score": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "score", + "label", + "checks" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "dev.protogrid/tools": { + "description": "Current tools; schemas only with schemas=true", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "name": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "name" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "dev.protogrid/trust": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "blocked": { + "type": "boolean" + }, + "flags": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "score": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "score", + "flags", + "blocked" + ], + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "dev.protogrid/connectability", + "dev.protogrid/tools", + "dev.protogrid/trust", + "dev.protogrid/quality", + "dev.protogrid/identity" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "next_actions": { + "description": "Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill)", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "action": { + "type": "string" + }, + "arguments": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "propertyNames": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "action" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "server": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "description": "The official server.json as published", + "properties": {}, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "server", + "_meta", + "next_actions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
list_tools1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "count": { + "maximum": 9007199254740991, + "minimum": -9007199254740991, + "type": "integer" + }, + "next_actions": { + "description": "Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill)", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "action": { + "type": "string" + }, + "arguments": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "propertyNames": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "action" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "next_cursor": { + "description": "Pass as cursor for the next page; null on the last page", + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "server": { + "type": "string" + }, + "tools": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "annotations": { + "description": "Tool hints such as readOnlyHint, as the server declares them" + }, + "description": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "input_schema": { + "description": "JSON Schema of the arguments, as the server declares it" + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "observed_at": { + "type": "string" + }, + "output_schema": {}, + "source": { + "enum": [ + "probe", + "publisher" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "title": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "name", + "title", + "description", + "input_schema", + "output_schema", + "annotations", + "source", + "observed_at" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "server", + "count", + "tools", + "next_cursor", + "next_actions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
search1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema", + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "count": { + "maximum": 9007199254740991, + "minimum": -9007199254740991, + "type": "integer" + }, + "mode": { + "enum": [ + "hybrid", + "keyword" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "next_actions": { + "description": "Follow-up calls: action is the tool, arguments are ready to pass ({placeholders} are yours to fill)", + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "action": { + "type": "string" + }, + "arguments": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "propertyNames": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "object" + } + }, + "required": [ + "action" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "query": { + "type": "string" + }, + "results": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "autonomous": { + "description": "True when an agent can connect with no human step", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "categories": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "connection_class": { + "description": "R0 remote no auth, R1 static secret, R2 OAuth, L0 local package", + "enum": [ + "R0", + "R1", + "R2", + "L0", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "description": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "human_steps": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "matched_tools": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "description": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "name", + "description" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "name": { + "description": "Official reverse-DNS name, the argument of every other tool", + "type": "string" + }, + "quality_label": { + "description": "strong, good, needs work, poor, new, not scored or blocked", + "type": "string" + }, + "quality_score": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + }, + "score": { + "description": "Relevance of this result to the query", + "type": "number" + }, + "title": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "tool_count": { + "maximum": 9007199254740991, + "minimum": -9007199254740991, + "type": "integer" + }, + "trust_flags": { + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "trust_score": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "name", + "title", + "description", + "connection_class", + "autonomous", + "human_steps", + "categories", + "trust_score", + "trust_flags", + "quality_score", + "quality_label", + "tool_count", + "score", + "matched_tools" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "query", + "mode", + "count", + "results", + "next_actions" + ], + "type": "object" +}
1 tool update
- Added
check_server
4 tool updates
- Changed
get_connection1 field changed- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
- Changed
get_server1 field changed- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
- Changed
list_tools1 field changed- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
- Changed
search1 field changed- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
1 tool update
- Changed
get_connection1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / target / enumPrevious value: -[ - "mcpServers", - "vscode", - "cursor", - "claude-code-cli", - "codex-toml", - "gemini", - "goose" -]New value: +[ + "mcpServers", + "vscode", + "cursor", + "claude-code-cli", + "codex-toml", + "opencode", + "gemini", + "goose" +]
4 tool updates
- First observed
get_connection - First observed
get_server - First observed
list_tools - First observed
search
Related MCP Connectors
Search and discover 25,000+ MCP servers across all major registries. Connect and pay autonomously.
Find MCP servers and check whether they actually respond, via live handshake probes.
Search a directory of MCP servers and get connect configs. Data is CC0/MIT-licensed.
Search the public universe of MCP servers. This data comes from the Official MCP Registry.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceEasily find MCP servers using our MCP registry. Search with natural language.16MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching and retrieving detailed information about MCP servers from the official MCP registry. Provides tools to list servers with filtering options and get comprehensive details about specific servers.49 npm3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceFinds the right MCP server for a task from over 1,400 indexed servers ranked by community trust. Also provides outcome-ranked web search for AI agents with no API key or rate limits.4-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides intelligent recommendations for MCP servers based on development needs using natural language queries. Searches through 874+ curated MCP servers across 36+ categories with advanced matching algorithms.35MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.