@aiwerk/mcp-server-imap

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: attachment handling, deletion, flagging, folder listing, inbox listing, moving, reading, replying, searching, and sending. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the 'email_' prefix, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., email_delete, email_send). 'email_attachment' and 'email_folders' are noun-based but clear given their descriptions.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools cover essential email operations (list, read, send, reply, delete, move, flag, search, folders, attachments) without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD and search are present. Minor gaps like folder management (create/rename) or draft handling exist but are not critical for basic IMAP usage.
Average 2.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only gives a vague purpose. It omits whether the search is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, a single phrase. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure and front-loads only a high-level purpose, leaving out essential information that would help the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to use the search, what results look like, or how parameters interact. For the complexity, the description fails to provide a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only vaguely mentions 'text/header/date criteria', failing to explain specific parameters like 'query', 'from', 'to', or the purpose of 'folder' and 'limit'. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search emails by text/header/date criteria'. It identifies the verb (search) and resource (emails), and distinguishes from sibling tools like email_list by specifying search criteria. However, it could be more precise about the types of criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_list or email_read. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or how it handles non-existent attachments. The phrase 'list or fetch' suggests two modes but no clarification on their behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specifying. It does not waste words but lacks necessary detail to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, how listing vs. fetching differ, or how to specify which attachment. More information is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like uid, folder, filename, index are not explained; the description does not clarify how to use them to list or fetch attachments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a verb (list/fetch) and resource (message attachment). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like email_list or email_read, which could also involve attachments implicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as email_list or email_read. Missing context on required prerequisites (e.g., user must have an email message open) or when listing vs. fetching is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation operation but fails to mention authentication needs, side effects, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it could be more structured to include key details like parameter usage without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three parameters and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (uids, action, folder). Users have no guidance on how to specify emails or actions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets read/star flags on emails, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like email_read, which might cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_read or email_search. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'via SMTP', offering minimal technical context. It fails to state whether email validation occurs, whether attachments are supported (and thus should be handled via email_attachment), or any rate limits or 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices essential information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity results in unclear completeness. A better structure would include key behavioral notes up front.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It provides no information on return values (e.g., sent email ID or error messages), no post-condition details, and no guidance on parameter combinations. Agents cannot reliably invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of any of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'to' expects email addresses, 'html' indicates HTML formatting), leaving agents without essential usage semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'send' with resource 'email' and specifies the protocol 'via SMTP', which distinguishes it from siblings like email_reply (replying to existing threads) or email_read. However, it could be more specific about the tool's scope, such as indicating it sends a new email from scratch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_reply or email_attachment. An agent cannot tell if this tool is appropriate for sending a reply or attaching files without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose essential behaviors: does it return full email bodies or just headers? Sorting? Required authentication? The single sentence is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too terse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the one sentence is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return format, pagination, or filtering behavior. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema fields. It does not explain what 'folder' refers to, how 'limit' affects results, or what 'unreadOnly' does. The description is completely silent on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List emails from a folder' clearly states the verb (list), resource (emails), and scope (from a folder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_read (specific email) and email_search (search based on criteria).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify how folder selection works or when to use email_search instead of listing all emails. The agent gets no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate if reading marks the email as seen, any size limits, error handling for invalid uid, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly restructured to include parameter hints without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain the return structure beyond 'body and attachments metadata'. It also lacks edge case handling (e.g., email not found).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (uid, folder, format). The agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'one email', specifying that it includes body and attachments metadata. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like email_list or email_search, which may return summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a uid from email_list), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions moving to Trash but does not disclose side effects (e.g., recoverability, permission requirements, or behavior when folder is specified).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but under-specified. Could be improved by adding param details while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, and the role of the folder parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters (uids, folder). It does not specify that uids are email identifiers or that folder is the source folder.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: delete emails by moving them to Trash. This distinguishes from siblings like email_move (which moves to arbitrary folders) and implies it's not permanent deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., email_move for moving to a specific folder, or a permanent delete tool if exists). No when-not or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the protocol. It does not disclose whether attachments are preserved, what happens to the original email, authentication requirements, or rate limits. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place but the overall value is limited by brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to cover essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must provide parameter meaning but does not. It adds no explanation for uid, folder, body, html, cc, or replyAll. The agent must guess parameter purposes from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reply'), the target ('existing email'), and the method ('via SMTP'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_send (send new) and email_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use 'replyAll', or how this differs from composing a new email with email_send.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'move' which implies mutating state, but does not disclose consequences (e.g., what happens if destination folder doesn't exist, whether the operation is atomic, or if there are size limits). The description is too minimal for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It directly conveys the core function. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not inform about success indicators, error conditions, or any constraints (e.g., moving within same mailbox?). For a 3-param tool, more detail is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by explaining 'uids' as email identifiers and 'from'/'to' as folders. However, it does not mention the default value for 'from' (INBOX) or that 'to' is required. The parameter roles are partially clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (move), resource (email UIDs), and the concept of between folders. It distinguishes from siblings like email_delete and email_list. However, it does not mention the default 'from' folder (INBOX), which is useful contextual info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to relocate emails, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., no copy tool is present). It lacks when-not scenarios or prerequisites like required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states it's a read-only list operation, which is transparent, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or the meaning of 'status counters'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but does not specify the format of the returned list or whether status counters include specific counts (e.g., unread, total).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('folders and status counters'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like email_list and email_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_list or email_search, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-imap MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIWerk/mcp-server-imap/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIWerk/mcp-server-imap)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-imap MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIWerk/mcp-server-imap/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIWerk/mcp-server-imap)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AIWerk/mcp-server-imap'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server