DevRel Directory
Server Details
Search DevRel tools, communities, jobs, events, CFPs, and guides from devrel.directory.
- 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 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: aggregate stats, single listing detail, events listing, jobs listing, directory search, and cross-document search. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_events, search_directory). No mixing of conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for a directory MCP, covering stats, entity details, lists, and searches without bloat.
The tool set covers all core read operations for a directory: retrieving stats, individual listings, filtered lists of events and jobs, and two search scopes (directory only and unified). No obvious gaps given the read-only nature.
Available Tools
6 toolsdirectory_statsAInspect
Aggregate statistics across devrel.directory in one call: listing counts by category; active job count, distinct hiring companies, the workplace mix (remote/hybrid/onsite counts), the share of roles that are remote or remote-friendly (the site's own classification, which also reads remote-prefixed locations), and salary min/median/max computed ONLY over roles stating USD pay (currencies are never blended); upcoming event count, open CFPs, and CFPs closing within 30 days. Every salary figure carries n, the number of disclosing roles - always cite n alongside any salary figure, and treat a small n as a weak signal. Each section carries a canonicalUrl to the devrel.directory page behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains that salary is only over USD roles, that remote-friendly reads remote-prefixed locations, that n must be cited, and that small n is weak signal. It also mentions canonicalUrl for each section.
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 sentence that packs substantial information. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then details categories. While dense, it remains clear and organized. Could be split for readability, but overall efficient.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description must fully explain the return value. It covers all major sections (listings, jobs, workplace, salary, events) and includes crucial usage instructions about salary and n. It is complete for the tool's purpose.
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?
There are no parameters (0), and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by detailing what the output contains, but since no params exist, a baseline of 4 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 it aggregates statistics from devrel.directory, listing specific categories like listing counts, job counts, workplace mix, salary stats, and event counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_listing, list_events, list_jobs, search_directory, search_docs) by being a multi-faceted aggregation rather than a specific detail lookup.
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?
It explicitly says 'in one call,' implying this tool is for efficiency when needing multiple stats. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the aggregation nature suggests it's for overviews. Includes usage caveats about salary and n, which provides some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_listingAInspect
Get the full detail for one directory listing by its slug, including longer details when present, the slugs of similar listings, curated alternatives and complements (hand-picked substitutes and stack pairings, as slug + name), and any open DevRel jobs or upcoming events cross-linked to the same company. Returns an error for an unknown slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing slug, as returned by search_directory (e.g. 'answer-overflow'). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return structure (details, similar, alternatives, cross-linked jobs/events) and error handling for unknown slug. With no annotations, this is adequate coverage of behavior.
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?
Single paragraph of ~60 words, front-loaded with key action. Could be slightly more scannable but 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?
With no output schema, description fully covers return fields (longer details, similar, alternatives, jobs, events) and error case. Sufficient for agent to understand tool 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?
Only one parameter (slug) with schema description mentioning it's the slug from search_directory. Description adds example and context beyond schema, aiding agent usage.
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?
Description clearly states it gets full detail for a directory listing by slug, listing included fields. Distinguishes from siblings like search_directory (list), directory_stats (stats), and list_events/list_jobs (specific entities).
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?
Implied usage: use when you have a specific slug from search_directory. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the relationship to search_directory is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_eventsAInspect
List DevRel events and conferences with their call-for-papers deadlines. Defaults to upcoming events only; set upcomingOnly to false to include past events, or cfpOpenOnly to true to keep only events whose CFP is still open. Each result includes the external event url and a canonicalUrl to the events page on devrel.directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cfpOpenOnly | No | When true, only events whose call for papers is still accepting submissions. | |
| upcomingOnly | No | Default true; set false to include events that have already started or ended. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses defaults and filtering effects. Implies read-only behavior. Could mention that results are sorted or paginated, but adequate for a simple list tool.
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, no waste. First sentence states purpose, second explains parameters and output. Highly efficient.
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 tool with 2 boolean parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: behavior, defaults, filter options, and output contents.
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 description adds significant value by explaining defaults (upcomingOnly default true) and the effect of cfpOpenOnly. Also describes output fields (external url, canonicalUrl).
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?
Description clearly states it lists DevRel events and conferences with CFP deadlines, using specific verbs and resources. Sibling tools like list_jobs and search_directory are distinct, so purpose is well-defined.
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?
Description explains default behavior (upcomingOnly true) and how to use parameters to modify filtering. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_jobsAInspect
List currently open DevRel job postings. Filter by a free-text query (matched against title, company, location, and tags), a remote flag, an employment type, a seniority level, and/or a minimum salary - the same filters, with the same semantics, as the site's jobs page. Salary fields are passed through exactly as the posting states them. Each result includes the external posting url and a canonicalUrl to the job on devrel.directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Filter to one seniority bucket, derived from the job title the way the site derives it (management titles outrank IC prefixes). | |
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring matched against title, company, location, and tags. | |
| remote | No | When true, only remote roles; when false, only non-remote roles. | |
| salaryFloor | No | Only roles whose stated yearly pay could reach this amount (compared against the highest stated bound, in the posting's own currency; roles with no stated pay never qualify). | |
| employmentType | No | Filter to one employment type (postings that omit it are treated as full-time). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It describes filtering semantics and output fields (external URL, canonicalUrl), but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which are common for listing endpoints.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information.
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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, filters, and output contents. Missing pagination details, but overall sufficient for selection and 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%, but the description adds value by explaining filters have 'the same semantics as the site's jobs page' and clarifying salary floor behavior, surpassing baseline expectations.
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 lists currently open DevRel job postings, with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_listing, list_events, and search_directory which focus on other entities.
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 explains filtering options mirroring the site's jobs page, indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though sibling context makes this clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_directoryAInspect
Search the devrel.directory listings of DevRel tools, communities, newsletters, podcasts, and agencies. Filter by a free-text query (matched against name, description, and tags) and/or an exact category. Each result includes the external url and a canonicalUrl to the listing's page on devrel.directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Case-insensitive substring matched against name, description, and tags. | |
| category | No | Exact listing category to filter to. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses matching behavior (case-insensitive substring) and result fields (external url, canonicalUrl), but could mention it's read-only and has no side effects.
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 – highly efficient.
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?
Covers inputs and output fields adequately for a simple search tool; minor gap: no mention of pagination or result limits, but acceptable given simplicity.
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 schema descriptions already explain parameter usage; description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so baseline score 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 devrel.directory listings of specific types (tools, communities, etc.), distinguishes from siblings like get_listing and list_events.
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 explains how to filter by query and category, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for general search vs. fetching a single listing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_docsAInspect
Search the devrel.directory unified index of documentation guides, blog posts, directory listings, jobs, and events (including which have an open call for papers). Returns matching results with absolute devrel.directory URLs; event results deep-link to the specific event on the events page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output format and scope (devrel.directory index), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or safety profile. The description adds useful context about deep-linking and absolute URLs.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value. No wasteful or redundant language.
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 no output schema, the description explains return values (URLs and deep-links) and scope. It does not address pagination, result limits, or error handling, but for a simple search tool with one parameter, it is mostly complete.
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% (query parameter described). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema for the parameter, so baseline score 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 a unified index of documentation, blog posts, directory listings, jobs, and events. It specifies the output includes absolute URLs and event deep-links, distinguishing it from siblings like search_directory and list_events.
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 implies usage for unified search across multiple content types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_directory or list_events. No usage guidance or exclusions are provided.
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!