Library
Server Details
Search and discover 25,000+ MCP servers across all major registries. Connect and pay autonomously.
- 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 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: catalog lists registries, checkout handles payments, inspect retrieves metadata for a specific server, and search finds servers by keyword. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names are single lowercase words (catalog, checkout, inspect, search), following a consistent and predictable pattern.
4 tools is a well-scoped number for a server focused on searching and interacting with MCP server registries. Each tool addresses a core function without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers listing registries, searching servers, inspecting metadata, and handling payments. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to add or configure registries, but the core workflow is complete.
Available Tools
4 toolscatalogRegistry CatalogAInspect
List all registries being searched with live status and total server counts.
| 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 carries full burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait (listing registries with status/counts) but lacks details on side effects, authorization, or pagination. It is not misleading but minimal.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what it returns. Minor missing details (e.g., output format) are acceptable for this 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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline is 4; the description adds no param info but is adequate since none are needed.
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 all registries being searched with live status and total server counts, specifying the resource and output details. It distinguishes from sibling tools (checkout, inspect, search) which have different purposes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
checkoutCheckout / Pay for MCP ServerAInspect
Detect payment protocol for any MCP server and route to the correct payment execution. Supports x402 (USDC on Base), MPP (Stripe), and prepaid API keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | fund | execute | check | fund |
| amount | No | USD amount to fund if prepaid (default 5) | |
| payload | No | Request body for execute action | |
| agent_id | No | Optional identifier for this agent | |
| endpoint | Yes | MCP server endpoint URL |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions protocol detection and routing but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The supported payment types are listed, but behavioral traits are minimal.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. No extraneous words or repetition. Every sentence adds value.
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 is brief for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects. No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at return values or typical usage patterns. It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters with defaults and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 detects payment protocols and routes execution, with specific supported types (x402, MPP, prepaid API keys). It distinguishes from sibling tools (catalog, inspect, search) which serve different purposes.
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 payment handling but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
inspectInspect MCP ServerAInspect
Get full metadata for any MCP server. Accepts reverse-DNS name, endpoint URL, or plain keyword. Includes payment protocol detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Reverse-DNS name, endpoint URL, or plain keyword |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or output behavior beyond 'full metadata'.
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 wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by input variations and a feature highlight. Ideal conciseness.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It lacks details on return format, but 'full metadata' is acceptable given the 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% with a clear description for the only parameter. The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, but is accurate and consistent.
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 'Get full metadata for any MCP server,' specifying the action and resource. It also details input types and payment protocol detection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like catalog or search.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch MCP ServersAInspect
Search MCP servers by server title/name, description, or by the tools they provide. Accepts natural language capability queries like 'send emails', 'search the web', 'create pull requests', or direct server names like 'GitHub' or 'Stripe'. Results are ranked by relevance: title match first, then tool name match, then description. Each result includes the server's tool list so you can confirm it does what you need.
Set limit based on the type of request you received:
Prompting (general/exploratory — user is browsing or asking broadly): use 20-30
Task assignment (user delegated a goal for you to execute autonomously): use 10-15
Instruction/directive (specific command with a clear target server in mind): use 3-5
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max total results (default 20, max 50). Use 20-30 for exploratory prompts, 10-15 for delegated tasks, 3-5 for specific directives. | |
| query | Yes | Server name/title (e.g. 'GitHub', 'Stripe') OR a task/capability (e.g. 'send emails', 'search the web', 'create pull requests', 'analyze crypto prices') | |
| sources | No | Filter to specific sources: official-registry, glama, mcpso, x402direct, mppscan | |
| payment_protocol | No | Filter results to servers using specific payment protocols. x402 queries x402.direct, mpp queries mppscan.com. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are unified and deduplicated with payment protocol detection, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not contradict any annotations.
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 primary action and result features. Every word adds value; no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 omits details on result structure or error handling. However, it adequately covers purpose and core behavior for a search tool. Missing specifics about return format limit its completeness.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example keywords for the query parameter, but the schema already includes that. No additional meaning beyond schema is provided for limit or sources.
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 explicitly identifies searching MCP servers by keyword across multiple registries simultaneously. It distinguishes from siblings (catalog, checkout, inspect) by specifying the search and deduplication behavior.
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 clearly states when to use the tool (searching by keyword across all registries) but does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. The context implies its use for discovery, which is sufficient.
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!