Agent Directory MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: stats, get details, list categories, rate, register, search, and top-rated. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_service, list_categories, rate_service, etc.). 'directory_stats' is a noun_noun phrase but still consistent in style (lowercase, underscores). Minor deviation.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for an agent directory service. It covers core operations without being sparse or bloated.
Completeness3/5
Covers create (register_service), read (get_service), list/search (search_services, list_categories), and rating. Missing update_service and delete_service, which are notable gaps for full lifecycle management.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'die bestbewerteten Services' (the highest-rated services), but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any side effects, authorization needs, or how the results are ordered or limited. The behavior is under-specified.
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 short and structured: a title sentence, a clarifying sentence, and an Args block. There is no unnecessary information. However, it could be more concise by avoiding the repetition of 'Services'.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the limit affects output. It lacks details on the result format (list, fields, ordering). The description is minimal and leaves the agent with significant unknowns about the output.
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?
The description adds meaning to the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema (which only has default and type). It explains that limit is the number of results (Anzahl) with a default of 10. However, it doesn't clarify the exact semantics (e.g., max results, truncation) or any other parameter behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.
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 'Top-bewertete Services anzeigen' (display top-rated services), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_service' (single service) and 'search_services' (search all). However, it could be more precise about sorting and result structure.
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 like 'get_service' or 'search_services'. No conditions or exclusions provided. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (rate) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether previous ratings are overwritten), required permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 with a clear 'Args' section. The second sentence is not critical but does not detract. It is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message or error) or provide behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
While schema coverage is 0%, the description provides clear semantics: service_name is the name of the service, rating is 1-5 (5 best), review is optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type annotations.
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 'Rate a service (1-5 stars)', specifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_service' (read) and 'register_service' (create). However, the additional sentence about helping agents find good services adds slight ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is implied, but lacking direct context for usage.
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 are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what is returned (e.g., fields, format) or any side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
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 short and includes an Args section, which is acceptable, but it could be more structured with a return description. It is concise but under-informative.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return values, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the single parameter 'name' as 'Name des Services', adding meaning beyond the schema's title and type.
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 verb ('abrufen' i.e., retrieve) and the resource ('Details eines bestimmten Service'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'search_services' or 'list_categories'.
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 (e.g., search_services, top_services). The description offers no context for selection.
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 are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing services), required permissions, or rate limits. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.
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 a single sentence plus a bullet list of parameters, which is efficient and easy to scan. It is concise but lacks a structured format; the parameter list is clear.
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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter meanings but omits important context like return behavior, error handling, or duplicate handling. It is minimally complete for simple registration but lacks depth.
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?
Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description provides German translations and brief explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'capabilities: Liste der Fähigkeiten'). This adds meaning beyond the bare JSON schema titles, though descriptions are minimal.
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 tool's purpose: 'Einen AI-Agent-Service im Verzeichnis registrieren' (register an AI agent service in the directory). The verb 'register' and resource 'AI agent service' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_service or search_services.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It only describes the action without contextual usage advice.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches the directory and lists filter parameters, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or what the return format is. Behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or empty result handling are absent.
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 concise: a title, a one-sentence summary, then a clear list of parameter explanations. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.
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?
For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it is missing key details like return format (what does the result list contain?), default ordering, or whether search is fuzzy/exact. These gaps limit completeness to a 3.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: query searches name/description/capabilities, category is an optional filter, tags is optional, and limit sets max results (default 10). This compensates well for the bare schema, earning a 4.
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 'Nach AI-Agent-Services suchen' and explains that it searches the directory for services with specific capabilities. The verb 'search' and resource 'services' are explicit, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_service, list_categories) implies its role as a broader search tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it gets a 4.
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 want to find services by query, category, or tags. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_service or top_services, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('abrufen') and lists output contents, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or potential side effects. The description is minimally adequate.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short lines. It front-loads the purpose and lists outputs without any superfluous words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (total numbers of services, categories, ratings). It is complete enough for its simplicity, though it could mention that results are aggregated.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly reflects that no input is required.
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 'abrufen' (retrieve) and the resource 'directory statistics', specifying it returns total counts of services, categories, and ratings. While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_service and list_categories by implying aggregate data, it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 list_categories or top_services. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the use case without explicit context.
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?
The description discloses that the tool returns a list of categories and their service counts, but it lacks details about sorting, pagination, or whether only categories with at least one service are included. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and these missing behavioral characteristics reduce transparency.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds a key detail (service counts). Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what output to expect (categories with counts). No further details are necessary for competent use.
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 input schema is trivially covered. The description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly leaves the schema to speak for itself.
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 that the tool lists all service categories and shows the number of services registered in each. The verb 'auflisten' combined with the resource 'Service-Kategorien' makes the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual services or statistics.
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 that this tool is for retrieving category-level aggregation data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_service' or 'search_services'. A sentence contrasting with other tools or indicating prerequisites could improve clarity.
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:

[![agent-directory-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/agent-directory-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/agent-directory-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-directory-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/agent-directory-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AiAgentKarl/agent-directory-mcp-server)

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/AiAgentKarl/agent-directory-mcp-server'

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