IMAP Mail MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the three search tools (mail_query_by_folder, mail_search, mail_search_advanced) have overlapping functionality, which could lead to confusion despite the descriptions advising preference for mail_search_advanced.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is mostly 'mail_verb_noun' but uses inconsistent verbs (get vs list vs query) and mixes conventions between retrieval actions, creating slight inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for an IMAP-focused server, covering the essential operations for reading and searching emails without being excessive.
Completeness3/5
The server covers reading, searching, and thread context well, but notable gaps exist for common IMAP actions like marking messages as read/unread, deleting, or moving messages.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
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 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The cursor parameter implies pagination, but this is not mentioned in 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's primary role and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficient.
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 22 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details on return format, pagination behavior, and usage context, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level grouping of parameters (keyword, sender/receiver, etc.) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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 it is an 'advanced search tool' and lists the searchable fields (keyword, sender/receiver, etc.), which conveys the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_list_messages or mail_search.
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. The term 'primary' suggests it is the default for advanced searches, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided.
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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.
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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides guidance. No unnecessary words or information.
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 8 parameters and no output schema. The description is very brief and does not cover return values, pagination (cursor, returnPage), or snippet inclusion. However, the schema provides full parameter details, so the description is adequate for basic understanding but not complete for complex use cases.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, just noting it is a free-text query. It does not explain parameter interactions or nuances.
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 it is a convenience free-text query within one folder. It distinguishes itself from mail_search_advanced by noting the latter is preferred for canonical searches, though it could better differentiate from other sibling tools like mail_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 tells the agent to prefer mail_search_advanced for canonical searches, providing some guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it does not specify what constitutes a 'canonical' search or when not to use this tool, leaving room for interpretation.
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 discloses that results are envelope-only by default and supports sort/cursor/snippet, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what 'envelope' information includes. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the primary action ('List recent messages in a folder'), followed by key options. Every word earns its place with no 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?
Given 6 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is adequate but misses important details like pagination behavior (cursor usage), the definition of 'envelope', and snippet format. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for new users.
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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what each parameter's schema description already provides (e.g., default values, enum). The phrase 'envelope only by default' is not directly tied to any parameter.
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 recent messages in a folder' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like `mail_get_message` by defaulting to envelope-only. It mentions supported features (sort/cursor/snippet), making its 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `mail_search` or `mail_list_unread`. There is no explicit context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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, the description adds value by noting the default inclusion of snippets and the use of email headers. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior, which are relevant but not disclosed.
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 redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and essential detail (headers, snippets). Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, requiring the description to explain return values. It does not describe the response structure (e.g., list of messages, ordering) beyond implying related messages. Pagination and limits are not addressed, leaving a gap in completeness.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter—it merely restates the overall functionality. No parameter-specific elaboration is given.
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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'related messages in the same thread context'. It clarifies the mechanism (Message-ID/References/In-Reply-To), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_get_message or mail_list_messages that do not assemble thread context.
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 the tool is for retrieving thread context but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it fetches a full message including envelope and body text, but does not mention read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate but not detailed.
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?
Single sentence, fully front-loaded, no redundant words. Every word adds value.
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 no output schema, description explains return content (envelope + body text) which is helpful. Lacks details on error conditions or output format, but for a simple tool it's nearly complete. Sibling tools are many but purpose is clear.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description only mentions 'folder' and 'UID' without adding new meaning beyond schema. The mention of 'envelope + body text' hints at output but not 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?
Clearly states action ('Fetch'), resource ('one full message'), method ('by folder and UID'), and content ('envelope + body text'). Differentiates from sibling tools like mail_list_messages (listing only) and mail_search (searching).
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?
Implies usage when a specific folder and UID are known, but no explicit when/not-to-use or alternatives mentioned. No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.
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 provided. Description describes a read operation without side effects, but does not discuss rate limits, error conditions, or behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty mailbox).
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 sentences, no superfluous words. Purpose is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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?
No output schema; description does not specify return format (e.g., list of strings or objects). For a simple listing, it is adequate but could clarify structure for complex clients.
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?
No parameters exist (schema_empty, 100% coverage). Description adds value by giving examples of folder types (INBOX, Sent), which is more than the schema alone provides.
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 'List' and resource 'mail folders' with examples (INBOX, Sent), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list messages or 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 implies usage when wanting to see folder names but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it differs from siblings like mail_list_messages or mail_query_by_folder.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that only envelope fields are returned by default and that sort, cursor, and snippet options are available. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only or any potential side effects, though the name implies read.
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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey the primary function and key options. No extraneous information is included.
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 presence of six parameters, a required mailbox, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the response structure and pagination behavior. It mentions cursor support but does not explain the envelope fields or the difference between returnPage options, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the parameter details are already well-documented. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating the availability of sort/cursor/snippet options, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 'List unread messages' and specifies the resource 'in a folder', making the purpose specific. It also hints at differentiation from sibling 'mail_list_messages' by focusing only on unread messages.
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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mail_search or mail_list_messages. It only mentions the envelope-only default and available options, but lacks contextual cues for choosing among siblings.
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 provided. The description calls it a 'search,' implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, disclose side effects, or explain response behavior beyond parameter schema hints (e.g., returnPage changes output format).
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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded.
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?
Despite 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain return format, pagination, or what 'basic fields' encompasses. Agent needs more context to use effectively.
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 covers all 13 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the name 'basic fields,' 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?
Description clearly states it is a 'convenience folder search by basic fields,' which specifies verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'mail_search_advanced' by noting the latter offers richer filters and reliability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to 'prefer mail_search_advanced for richer filters and agent reliability,' providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and directing to an alternative.
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 full burden. It discloses the non-download nature, but lacks details on permissions, pagination, or list size limits.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys all essential information without waste, earning 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 no output schema, the description could specify what metadata fields are returned (e.g., filename, size). It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by stating the message is identified by folder and UID, reinforcing the schema's hints.
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 lists attachment metadata for one message by folder and UID, and explicitly clarifies that it does not download binaries. This distinguishes it from other mail tools.
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 indicates use case (list metadata for a specific message) and inputs, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like mail_get_message or provide 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns specific counter types. However, it lacks details on authentication scope or whether the operation involves any side effects, though the read-only nature is implied.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes specifics. No filler or redundant information; 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return values. No additional information is necessary for correct invocation.
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 schema already describes the mailbox parameter (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that it targets 'one folder' and lists the returned counters, aiding parameter understanding 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 it retrieves message counters for a folder, listing specific counters (messages, unseen, recent, UID metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings that return message lists or individual messages.
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 for getting counters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like mail_list_messages or mail_list_unread. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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