Browse all MCP servers in the registry with pagination. Use the next_cursor from the response to fetch subsequent pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of servers per page (1-100, default 20) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous list response | |
| latest_only | No | Only return the latest version of each server (default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds pagination behavior and the presence of next_cursor, but doesn't mention potential concerns like authentication, rate limits, or the default latest_only=true which might conflict with the phrase 'all MCP servers'. It's adequate but not comprehensive.
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 with no filler. The first states the purpose, the second explains pagination, both earning their place. Excellent conciseness and front-loading.
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 list tool, it covers purpose and pagination, but lacks an output schema and doesn't describe the response shape beyond the cursor. The 'all MCP servers' wording introduces slight ambiguity given the latest_only parameter. It's sufficient but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; the only connection is the next_cursor mention which relates to the cursor parameter but isn't a semantic enrichment. It meets the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('all MCP servers in the registry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mcp_server_details (single server) and search_mcp_registry (search). The pagination mention further clarifies its listing purpose.
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 provides clear context for use (browsing all servers with pagination) and explicit instruction on using next_cursor for subsequent pages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, falling short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: searching by keyword, listing all servers, and fetching detailed metadata for a specific server. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity in choosing the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_mcp_server_details, list_mcp_servers, search_mcp_registry. The verbs (get, list, search) clearly indicate the action, and nouns describe the target.
Three tools is well-scoped for a registry search and discovery service. Each tool is essential for the core workflow, and the count fits comfortably within the ideal range.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of registry exploration: search to find servers, list to browse all, and get details to inspect a specific server. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of browsing and retrieving MCP server information.