Cloud Run MCP Server

Official

by GoogleCloudPlatform

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Hybrid

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 deployment tools (deploy_file_contents, deploy_local_files, deploy_local_folder) could cause confusion as they all handle deployment with subtle differences in input source. The other tools (create_project, get_service, get_service_log, list_projects, list_services) are clearly differentiated by their target resources and actions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as create_project, deploy_file_contents, get_service, and list_services. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Cloud Run deployments and related GCP projects. The count is reasonable, covering core operations like deployment, service management, and project handling without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key workflows for Cloud Run, including deployment, service retrieval, logging, and project management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update or delete operations for services or projects, but agents can likely work around these with the provided tools for basic deployment and monitoring tasks.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, what format they come in, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. Given the complexity of Cloud Run services and the lack of structured output documentation, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('details for a specific Cloud Run service'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' or 'get_service_log', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_services' (for listing all services) or 'get_service_log' (for logs). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets Logs and Error Messages', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., structured logs, error details). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns logs and error messages. It does not address the nature of the output (e.g., format, structure, or potential limitations), which is crucial for an agent to handle the results effectively. This gap reduces its overall helpfulness.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters (project, region, service) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Gets') and the resource ('Logs and Error Messages for a specific Cloud Run service'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service' or 'list_services', which might also involve service-related queries, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from 'get_service' or 'list_services'. It also lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what format the results are in, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a cloud service listing tool, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't help the agent understand what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or important operational constraints. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'project and region' parameters but adds no semantic context beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions). The description doesn't explain why these parameters matter or how they affect the listing operation, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('Cloud Run services') with scope ('in a given project and region'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_service', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'get_service'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, filtering). The description is too basic for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from 'list_services'. Given the complexity implied by GCP projects and sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the empty input schema. A baseline of 4 is justified since there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('available GCP projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_services' or explain what 'available' means in this context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service' or 'create_project'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deployment action but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether this creates or updates services, potential costs, time estimates, or error handling. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word earns its place by stating the core purpose and key usage condition without redundancy or fluff.
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 this is a deployment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex implications (resource creation/modification, cloud costs, permissions), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after deployment, success indicators, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description only mentions 'absolute folder path' without adding meaningful context beyond what the schema provides for 'folderPath' or other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the specific action ('Deploy a local folder to Cloud Run') and resource ('local folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deploy_file_contents' or 'deploy_local_files' by specifying 'entire folder content' deployment. This provides precise verb+resource differentiation.
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 includes explicit guidance to 'Use this tool if the entire folder content needs to be deployed,' which helps differentiate from tools handling individual files. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives like 'deploy_file_contents' for partial deployments, leaving some contextual gaps.
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 key behaviors: project creation, optional project ID specification, auto-generation if not provided, and billing account attachment. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, or what 'first available billing account' means operationally.
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 with zero waste: the first states the core action and billing behavior, the second clarifies the parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and parameter but lacks completeness. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or the implications of billing account attachment, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.
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 the single optional parameter 'projectId'. The description adds minimal value by restating that it's optional and auto-generated if omitted, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema describes.
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 specific action ('Creates a new GCP project') and resource ('GCP project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists) and deployment tools. It also specifies the additional billing attachment behavior, 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a new project is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects for viewing existing ones) or any prerequisites. It mentions billing account attachment but not conditions or exclusions for this behavior.
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 full burden. While it mentions that files must exist locally, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing deployments), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after deployment. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted verbiage.
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 this is a deployment tool (complex operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' entails (e.g., creates/updates a service), what happens on success/failure, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies cloud infrastructure, this leaves too many unknowns for safe agent invocation.
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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that files are 'absolute file paths from the local filesystem.' This matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 specific action ('Deploy local files to Cloud Run') and resource ('local files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'deploy_file_contents' (which likely deploys content strings) and 'deploy_local_folder' (which deploys folders rather than individual files). The purpose is unambiguous and well-specified.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool if the files exists on the user local filesystem'), providing clear context for its application. This directly addresses the alternative scenario where files might not be local, helping the agent choose correctly among deployment options.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deployment action but doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing files?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds some context about project ID confirmation but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second provides crucial usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant 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?
For a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks important contextual information about what the tool actually does behaviorally (creates/updates services, potential side effects, error handling). The schema covers parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.
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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'array of file objects containing filename and content' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. The baseline is 3 when 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 the specific action ('Deploy files to Cloud Run') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'by providing their contents directly' and 'if the files only exist in the current chat context', which differentiates it from deploy_local_files and deploy_local_folder that presumably work with local file systems.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool if the files only exist in the current chat context'), providing clear guidance that distinguishes it from alternatives like deploy_local_files or deploy_local_folder, which would be used for files stored locally rather than in chat context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

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

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

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cloud-run-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-run-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-run-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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