tds-mcp

by Guipegoraro

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose (syntax check, listing RPO objects/functions, preprocessor, server log, RPO info, patch operations). No two tools overlap in functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'tds_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case (e.g., tds_syntax_check, tds_rpo_objects). Naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools cover the full workflow of TDS/ADVPL development: syntax checking, RPO exploration, preprocessor, logging, and patch lifecycle. The count is appropriate for the domain without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core operations: syntax validation, object/function listing, preprocessor output, server diagnostics, and patch management. Minor gap: no direct tool to fetch raw source file content (though generate_ppo provides preprocessed source).
Average 4.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by stating the output includes source and line. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise with two purposeful sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose and providing a clear usage example without 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 description explains the output (functions with source and line) but omits details like return format or pagination behavior for the 'limite' parameter. Adequate for a simple list tool.
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%, with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score.
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 lists RPO functions with source and line, using the verb 'Lista'. It distinguishes from siblings like tds_rpo_objects and tds_rpo_info, though not explicitly mentioning them.
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 provides a usage example with the filter parameter but does not offer guidance on when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for different scopes.
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 description adds critical behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the semantics of dataFonte and warning about common pitfalls. This helps agents use the tool correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph. While it includes valuable information, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the critical dataFonte semantics and default behavior. However, it does not detail all output fields, which might be necessary for full 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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the filter example and default behavior (no filter returns count + first 100) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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 lists sources/resources from the RPO using a filter. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like tds_rpo_info or tds_rpo_functions that might also list RPO objects.
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?
Provides an example filter and warns about misinterpreting the dataFonte field (not to compare with git commit). Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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 indicate readOnlyHint: true. Description adds 'Auditoria pré/pós-deploy' indicating historical tracking, and specifies it operates on the connected environment. No contradictory behaviors.
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, clear sentences directly describing the tool's output. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with key information.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. Could mention output format or typical use case but not required for 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?
The single parameter 'ultimosPatches' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'How many patches from history to return', so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool provides RPO version, generation date, and patch history. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tds_rpo_objects and tds_patch_info by focusing on overall RPO info and audit trail.
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. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., tds_patch_info for specific patches, tds_rpo_objects for objects), a recommendation would help the agent.
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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms 'sem aplicar'. Adds detail about checking source ages and mtime semantics, providing value beyond 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: validation without apply, gate recommendation, and date semantics clarification.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what, when, and the date semantics, leaving no major gaps.
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?
Only one parameter, fully described in schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, 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 the tool validates a patch against the RPO without applying it, and highlights it flags source files older than the RPO. This distinguishes it from siblings like tds_patch_apply and tds_patch_generate.
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?
Explicitly recommends as a gate before tds_patch_apply, providing clear context for when to use. No explicit exclusions, but the purpose implies when not to use (e.g., when applying is needed).
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 description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it shows only the last messages from the current session for diagnostics. This provides useful behavioral context about scope and purpose.
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 captures the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and its scope. It could mention whether the output is a list or text, but it is sufficient for a simple log tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description is sufficient.
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 shows the last messages from advpls in the session for connection/compilation diagnostics. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like syntax check or RPO functions.
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 diagnostics, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. With no parameters, it is straightforward, but guidance is missing.
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?
As anotações já declaram readOnlyHint=true, indicando operação somente leitura. A descrição adiciona valor ao especificar que o retorno é o fonte pré-processado, contextualizando o comportamento além das anotações.
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 descrição é composta por apenas duas frases, sem palavras desnecessárias. A primeira frase já informa a função principal, e a segunda fornece o caso de uso. Perfeitamente concisa e bem estruturada.
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?
Dada a baixa complexidade da ferramenta (1 parâmetro obrigatório, sem esquema de saída), a descrição cobre completamente o que o agente precisa saber: o que a ferramenta retorna e por que é útil. Não há lacunas significativas.
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?
A cobertura de descrição do esquema é de 100%; o único parâmetro 'arquivo' já está descrito no esquema como 'Caminho do fonte'. A descrição da ferramenta não adiciona informações extras sobre o parâmetro, então a pontuação permanece no patamar 3 (linha de base para cobertura alta).
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?
A descrição afirma claramente que a ferramenta retorna o fonte após o pré-processador (resolução de #include/#define) e especifica sua utilidade para depurar defines e includes. O nome 'Gerar PPO (fonte pré-processado)' reforça o propósito. Diferencia-se bem de ferramentas irmãs como tds_syntax_check e tds_rpo_objects, que têm finalidades distintas.
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?
A descrição indica explicitamente quando usar a ferramenta: 'Útil para depurar problemas de defines e includes'. Embora não mencione quando não usar ou alternativas, o contexto é claro o suficiente para um agente IA escolher corretamente entre as ferramentas irmãs.
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 provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces 'sem aplicá-lo' (without applying). Additionally, it explains the semantics of the 'date' field, referencing tds_rpo_objects, adding useful behavioral context 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a relevant usage context and field semantics note. No redundant information.
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 simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does (lists sources, dates, sizes) and provides enough context (audit use case, date field meaning) for an agent to use it 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%; the parameter description in the schema already documents 'Caminho local do .ptm/.upd/.pak'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 contents (sources, dates, sizes) of a patch file without applying it, with a specific use case for auditing third-party patches. It distinguishes from siblings like tds_patch_apply.
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 specifies the tool is for auditing patches received from third parties, implying inspection rather than application or validation. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use, the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it has no side effects, explains the sintaxeOk field interpretation, and warns that an empty resultados list does not indicate success. There is no 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fully complete: it explains behavior, usage, output interpretation, and side-effect profile.
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 100% of the single parameter 'arquivos' with a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, justifying the 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 tool compiles with syntaxOnly, validating sources without committing to RPO. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is safe to use before tds_compile, which likely commits changes.
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 advises using this tool before tds_compile and notes it has no side effects. It does not list specific when-not-to-use scenarios but provides adequate context.
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 description matches the destructiveHint annotation by noting it's a deploy operation that changes the environment. It adds useful behavioral context about default newer-only application and the optional override.
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 with three sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core action and context, with no unnecessary 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?
Given the tool's complexity, destructive annotation, and parameter count, the description covers the core purpose, default behavior, and prerequisite validation. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent, though error conditions are not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for aplicarAntigos and the file types for arquivoPatch, enhancing 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 the tool applies a patch to the RPO as a deploy operation that alters the environment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tds_patch_validate by recommending validation beforehand.
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 default behavior (only newer fonts) and how to force old fonts with aplicarAntigos=true. It recommends using tds_patch_validate first, providing clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the rpoDate semantics (mtime not compilation time), output file naming, and manifest content. Adequate behavioral coverage for a generation tool.
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?
Description is dense but efficient, front-loading the action and then detailing specifics. No irrelevant sentences; every line 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?
No output schema, but description explains return values (title, description, manifest) and input constraints. Could mention error conditions, but overall sufficient for a file generation tool.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context: fontes must be compiled, ticket becomes folder, etc., which adds meaning beyond parameter names and schema descriptions.
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 generates a PTM patch from compiled sources, with specific output structure and metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like tds_patch_validate or tds_patch_info by focusing on generation.
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 usage context (sources must be compiled) and output specifics, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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