Pusher Channels MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.13
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct actions (trigger, list, get, authorize, terminate). The only overlap is between trigger_event and trigger_batch_events, but descriptions clearly differentiate single vs. batch. Slight confusion possible between list_channels and get_channel_info, though one lists while the other fetches a single channel.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., trigger_event, list_channels, get_channel_info). Verbs are clear and consistent, and compound names like trigger_batch_events and terminate_user_connections align with the same convention.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a necessary operation for a Pusher Channels server without redundancy, making the set appropriately scoped.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: triggering events (single/batch), inspecting channels, retrieving presence users, authorizing private/presence access, and terminating users. No major gaps are apparent for the domain; all common Pusher Channels operations are represented.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the returned data (occupancy and optional counts) but does not explicitly note that the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or error behavior. The verb 'Get' implies safety, but more detail would improve 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key optional behavior without any redundant or extraneous content.
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 its simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main functionality and return expectations. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or a sample output, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.
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 100% for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'optional subscription/user counts,' which aligns with the 'info' parameter, but does not clarify the enum values or provide additional context beyond the schema.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Pusher channel'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_channels by focusing on a single named channel, and mentions unique aspects like occupancy and optional counts.
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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_channels or get_presence_users. It implies usage when you have a specific channel, but lacks direct comparisons 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the batch limit but fails to explain authentication requirements, partial failure behavior, response format, or side effects. For a mutating operation, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.
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. The first states the core action and limit, the second provides usage context and efficiency reasoning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
While the schema covers parameters, the absence of an output schema and any description of return values or error handling leaves the context incomplete. The tool has batch semantics and nested objects, so some guidance on expected results or failure modes would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 input schema already describes the 'events' array and all nested properties (channel, name, data, socketId) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond noting multi-channel notification, which is already implicit in the schema.
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 sends up to 10 events in one API call, using a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('events'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'trigger_event' by explicitly mentioning the batch capability, making the purpose 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 explicitly contrasts with individual event triggering ('More efficient than triggering events individually') and identifies the use case ('when you need to notify multiple channels'), giving clear context for when to choose this tool over the alternative. It stops short of describing when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.
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. It states the action and effect (push realtime messages) but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authorization requirements, or failure behavior. The socketId exclusion is only in the schema, not the description.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized with no fluff or redundancy.
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 is relatively simple with a well-covered schema, but there is no annotation and no output schema. The description covers basic purpose and use but lacks details about success/failure responses, rate limits, or relationship to sibling batch tool, making it minimally complete.
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 100%: every parameter (data, event, channel, socketId) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Send an event to one or more Pusher channels' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like trigger_batch_events (which handles multiple events) and list_channels by focusing on sending a single event to channels.
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 says 'Use this to push realtime messages to connected clients,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like trigger_batch_events, so it lacks exclusions but gives a definite scenario.
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 burden of disclosing behavior. It states the read-only nature ('List') and the real-time aspect ('currently connected'), but it does not disclose what happens for invalid channels, whether pagination exists, or what the response structure is. This is minimal 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint. It contains no filler and earns its place.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not specify return format or error conditions. It provides enough to understand the core function but lacks details needed for robust invocation, such as response shape or edge-case behavior. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.
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 schema documentation for the single 'channel' parameter includes a description, pattern, and length constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description only repeats the prefix requirement without adding further parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.
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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'users currently connected to a presence channel', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like list_channels and get_channel_info. The constraint 'Only works with channels that start with "presence-"' further sharpens the scope.
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 a clear precondition (presence- prefix) and implies the use case of retrieving current users of a presence channel. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the prefix constraint, resulting in a clear but not fully explicit guidance.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool generates a token, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It adds some context about Pusher but lacks explicit 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and use case. No wasted words or redundant detail.
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 tool has a simple scope, complete schema coverage, and no output schema. The description provides the key use-case context. It could mention that presenceData is required for presence channels, but the schema already does, so the description is adequately complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds general context about building auth endpoints but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Generate an authorization token for a private or presence channel.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on auth tokens rather than events, channel info, or user connections.
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 says 'Useful when building auth endpoints for Pusher client connections,' which clearly indicates the intended use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools serve different purposes, so the guidance is sufficient.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'active' channels are listed and that counts may be included, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('List all active channels') and compactly describes the optional parameters. No wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, the description confirms a list of channels but does not detail the return format (e.g., channel names, attributes) or mention pagination/limits. Given the tool's simplicity and optional parameters, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from one clarifying phrase about response shape.
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 coverage is 100% — both parameters (info, prefix) have descriptions, including examples. The description rephrases these options but adds little beyond the schema's own text. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'List all active channels in your Pusher app', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_channel_info (which targets a single channel) by emphasizing the listing of all channels. The mention of optional filters and counts adds scope.
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 explains the tool's context ('List all active channels') and options ('filter by prefix', 'request subscription or user counts'), but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. It implies use for broad listing but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (disconnects all connections, forces offline) but omits details like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., the user can reconnect). This is acceptable for a simple action but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff and is immediately scannable.
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 tool has a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description effectively covers what it does and why someone would use it, which is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly in context.
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 schema already describes 'userId' as 'The user ID to disconnect from all channels' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Disconnect') and resource ('all connections for a specific user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle events, channels, presence, and authorization. It also states the expected outcome: forces the user offline across all channels.
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 a clear use case ('useful for moderation or security') and implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but none of the siblings handle disconnecting user connections, so the guidance is adequate.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pusher-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CrashBytes/pusher-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/CrashBytes/pusher-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/CrashBytes/pusher-mcp-server'

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