CP Brand MCP

Official

by Consumer-Choice-Center

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.4.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct, with create_generation_prompt, create_central_visual_prompt, and create_one_pager_visual_prompts clearly separated by their purpose. audit_brand_assets and validate_one_pager_file might seem similar, but their descriptions clarify that one checks source assets while the other checks the final SVG layout.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, create_, audit_, validate_), though 'qa_one_pager_layout' uses an abbreviation instead of a full verb. The repeated 'create_' prefix for distinct prompt-generation tools is consistent and aids recognition.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a brand one-pager generation workflow. It covers the essential stages without unnecessary bloat, staying comfortably within the recommended 3-15 range.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the full pipeline: status check, asset audit, guideline retrieval, prompt generation, visual prompt creation, layout QA, final generation, and validation. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain of CP-branded one-pager creation.
Average 3.7/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 7, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the assistant generates images separately, implying this tool only prepares prompts, but it does not disclose what the tool actually returns or any side effects. This adds some context but leaves behavior ambiguous.
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 short (two sentences) but not efficient—it focuses on structure rather than purpose or usage. It lacks front-loaded key information such as what the tool returns or how to use it, making the brevity counterproductive.
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 the tool's complexity (a single required object with many nested required fields) and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the relationship between the content fields and the four prompts, what the tool outputs, or any usage context, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.
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 mention the sole 'content' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on how to populate the large, heavily nested content object, which is critical for using the tool. The description's mention of 'four contextual image prompts' is too indirect to map to the schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb and resource ('Prepare four contextual image prompts') and outlines the structure (central image plus one per key point), which distinguishes it from sibling create_central_visual_prompt. However, 'prepare' is vague and does not clarify whether the tool generates, formats, or stores prompts, nor how the content parameter feeds into this.
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 like create_central_visual_prompt. The sentence about the calling assistant generating images separately implies a workflow step but does not state selection criteria or prerequisites.
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 adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'measure[s] every text slot with exact CP fonts' and 'check[s] required fields without writing files.' This is consistent with annotations and adds value, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like error handling or performance.
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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundancy, but could be improved by including more useful context 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?
For a tool with such a complex input schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what 'exact CP fonts' means, what the output looks like, or how to handle the required fields beyond the schema. The tool name suggests one-pager layout, but the description does not ground the context enough for an agent to use it effectively.
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% – the description provides no explanation of the 'content' parameter or its structure. The schema is complex with many required nested fields, but the description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.
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 states a specific verb ('Measure' and 'check') and resource ('every text slot', 'required fields'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool validate_one_pager_file, which likely also checks required fields, so it isn't fully distinguished.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral note that it does not generate factual claims or artwork, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format or any other side effects beyond that.
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?
Two short sentences, no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying negative statement follows. Every word contributes value.
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?
With a single parameter that is completely undocumented and no usage guidance against sibling tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It also omits what the resulting brief looks like. The annotations cover safety but not parameter semantics or selection logic.
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 never mentions the 'request' parameter. The agent gets no guidance on what content the request should contain, its format, or constraints beyond the schema's string type and length limits.
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 (prepare a brief) and the resource (CP one-pager brief). The negative clause 'Does not generate factual claims or artwork' helps differentiate from content-generating tools, though it does not name specific siblings.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The negative statement implies this tool is not for factual claims or artwork, but it does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read operation, and the description consistently says 'Read'. It adds useful context about the guidelines being authoritative and overriding discrepancies, which goes beyond the annotation.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional precedence note is relevant and brief.
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 simple read-only tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential use context and authority relationship. It does not describe the return shape or individual section values, but those are not critical given the low tool complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'section' parameter or its values. While the enum values are fairly self-explanatory, the tool description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 reads authoritative brand guidelines and should be used before generation. The 'CP-only' acronym is not expanded, but the core purpose is unambiguous in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says to use the tool before generation and clarifies that the supplied guide overrides visual discrepancies in the one-pager example. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, but the timing guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral context by explaining the expected workflow: the assistant must generate, inspect, and save the image, then pass heroImage to create_one_pager. It also reiterates non-generation, which aligns with the read-only nature. This provides more insight than the annotation alone.
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—two sentences—and front-loads the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys the core function and essential workflow without extraneous information. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
The tool has a complex input schema, but the description lacks details about output (what is returned) and the specific structure of the 'content' object. It gives a high-level purpose and hints at the workflow but omits critical information like return format or parameter semantics. This leaves gaps for an agent to discover on its own.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single 'content' parameter with a complex nested structure (dozens of fields, some required). The description only refers to it as 'full one-pager content' without explaining the fields, their constraints, or how to populate them. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer the structure from the schema 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 tool's function: 'Prepare a topic-specific image-generation prompt from the full one-pager content.' It also explicitly clarifies that it does not generate the image itself, distinguishing it from image-generation tools. This is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides workflow guidance: 'The calling assistant must generate and inspect the image using its connected image tool, save it in inputs, and pass heroImage to create_one_pager.' This indicates when to use the tool (before creating the one-pager) and the necessary follow-up steps. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like create_generation_prompt, so it's not fully exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations, including 'Never overwrites existing files,' the fallback behavior when images are incomplete ('returns needs_generated_visuals and a prompt for each missing slot'), and the explicit requirement for reference-image reuse. These details exceed what the annotations convey.
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 dense paragraph covering multiple aspects: creation, guidelines, image requirements, final mode conditions, overwrite behavior, and validation. It is not overly long but packs many ideas, making it slightly less streamlined than ideal. Still, each sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given the complexity of the schema (nested objects, many fields), the description provides a useful high-level overview of the workflow and key constraints, such as the need for four images and validation. It does not explain every parameter, but it offers enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions a few (factsVerified, callout imageAlt, reference image reuse) but does not explain most fields like topic, headline, cards, centralVisual, or the relationships between them. The description is insufficient to guide parameter usage without further schema inspection.
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 primary function: 'Create a complete CP-only one-pager as an editable SVG, JSON source, and outlined SVG companion.' It names the resource (one-pager), the action (create), and the output formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual prompts or validations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage conditions such as 'Call guidelines first,' behavior when images are missing, final-mode requirements, and the instruction to 'validate the returned file before delivery.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and workflow notes make the appropriate use case reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Check' indicates a read-only operation, and the annotation confirms readOnlyHint=true. The additional detail 'No fallback fonts' provides behavioral context beyond the annotation, without contradiction.
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, short sentence that conveys the essential scope and constraints. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but does not mention the output format or return value. However, given the simple check nature and lack of output schema, the description is mostly sufficient; a slight gap remains in explaining expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the schema, so the description has nothing to add. The schema coverage is 100% and no parameter-level elaboration is needed.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and specifies the objects (hashes of supplied CP logos and references, exact installed font identities) clearly. It also notes the important constraint 'No fallback fonts.'
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 sibling tools. It implies a read-audit purpose but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'SVG markup stays local', which is a behavioral trait not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It clarifies that the tool does not transmit data externally, which is valuable for privacy/security. It also states it returns a report, but the local note goes beyond the annotations.
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, well-structured sentence that lists the validation criteria and the expected output. It avoids unnecessary jargon and directly conveys the tool's purpose. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (validation against multiple criteria) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is validated, what is returned, and the local behavior. It does not detail the report format or the exact validation rules, but for a validation tool this is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. No output schema exists, so the mention of a compact report is adequate.
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 only parameter, filePath, is partially described by the phrase 'by file path' in the description, indicating it is the path to the SVG file. However, the schema has no description for this parameter, and the tool description does not clarify path format (absolute/relative), file existence requirements, or any constraints. This gives basic meaning but leaves room for ambiguity.
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 function: validating a generated editable CP SVG against specific criteria (palette/fonts/assets, embedded images, template content). The verb 'Validate' and resource 'editable CP SVG' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_one_pager or qa_one_pager_layout by focusing on file validation. The expected output (a compact report) is also mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after generation to check compliance, which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the name and context make it obvious this is for validation rather than creation or layout QA. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the purpose is sufficiently self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific details about what the status report includes, which goes beyond the annotations but does not describe side effects or return format—though the annotations cover the key behavioral aspects.
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, concise sentence that lists all key information without any fluff or redundancy. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simple purpose.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does. The list of reported items (identity, version, paths, scope, health) is sufficiently detailed for an agent to know when to call it.
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 there is nothing to describe. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter details are needed.
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 a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact resource (CP live server identity, version, runtime paths, one-pager-only scope, required asset health), distinguishing it from sibling tools that audit, create, or validate content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The tool's purpose as a status reporter is self-evident, and the sibling context (audit, create, validate) makes its usage clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.
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:

[![CP Brand MCP MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Consumer-Choice-Center/cp-brand-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Consumer-Choice-Center/cp-brand-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![CP Brand MCP MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Consumer-Choice-Center/cp-brand-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Consumer-Choice-Center/cp-brand-mcp)

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/Consumer-Choice-Center/cp-brand-mcp'

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