DynamicMCPProxy

by HappyMonkeyAI

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

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 has a clearly distinct purpose: handshake, listing servers, searching, activation/deactivation, spec generation, metrics, usage tracking, etc. No two tools appear to overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'proxy_verb_noun' pattern with consistent snake_case. Verbs like 'list', 'activate', 'get', 'reset' are used uniformly, making the naming predictable.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools is well-scoped for a proxy management server, covering setup, discovery, activation, inspection, and usage tracking without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core workflows (handshake, list, search, activate, deactivate, add custom, metrics, usage). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to get detailed server info (beyond counts), but overall it's quite complete.
Average 3.9/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 33 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns usage counts, with no mention of side effects, access requirements, or limitations. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a potentially sensitive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, the parenthetical 'F-13' is extraneous and reduces clarity slightly.
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?
With an output schema present and a simple retrieval tool, the description provides adequate context. However, it does not explain what the output contains beyond 'usage counts', relying on the schema.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns usage counts for server ranking. The verb 'Return' and resource 'current server usage counts' are specific. The cryptic reference to 'self-evolving ranking (F-13)' slightly obscures purpose but does not mislead.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like proxy_get_metrics or proxy_list_active_servers. The description implies it is for retrieval, but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.
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?
The description labels the tool as 'Diagnostic tool', implying a read-only operation, but provides no further behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of disclosure.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily digestible.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose adequately. However, for a diagnostic tool, additional context about usage frequency or impact would improve completeness.
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, so the description need not add parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies, and the description is consistent with the empty 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's a diagnostic tool that exposes proxy state and server counts. It is specific (verb+resource) but does not differentiate from siblings like 'proxy_list_active_servers' or 'proxy_get_metrics', which have overlapping purposes.
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 on when to use this tool versus other proxy tools. The description does not provide context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where alternatives would be more appropriate.
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 provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states it activates servers but doesn't reveal side effects (e.g., whether it deactivates existing servers, requires network, is destructive, or idempotent). This is insufficient for a potentially state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a brief introductory sentence and a parameter list. However, it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose from args, and front-loading the key behavior.
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 complexity of activating multiple servers and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks prerequisites, error handling, and limitations (e.g., network dependency, no-match behavior). The output schema exists but isn't leveraged. More context is needed for safe 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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explains each parameter's purpose and optionality (e.g., tech_stack for languages, task_description for free-text). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: sending project context to activate relevant MCP servers and returning a summary. This is distinct from siblings like proxy_activate_server (manual activation) and proxy_list_* (listing only).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for initial context-based activation, it doesn't mention scenarios where manual activation is preferred or if it should be avoided when specific servers are needed.
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. It only states it returns 'live process metrics' and mirrors a resource, but does not disclose destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It clarifies that it mirrors a resource, which provides context. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'live process metrics' includes, but overall adequate for a simple 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, but meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns live process metrics for the proxy itself. It distinguishes from sibling tools like proxy_get_usage by focusing on process metrics, and mentions it mirrors a resource, providing a specific verb-resource pair.
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 vs alternatives. While it mentions mirroring a resource, it does not specify contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings like proxy_get_usage or proxy_list_tools.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states a destructive action (reset) but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or reversibility.
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, first states action and scope, second adds usage context. No redundancy or wasted words.
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?
Low complexity with one optional parameter and output schema. Description covers core purpose and parameter but lacks details on what 'reset' entails (e.g., resets to zero) and prerequisites.
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?
Description explains the single parameter 'server' meaning: if provided, resets for that server; if null, resets all. Adds value beyond schema name with 0% schema coverage.
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 the action 'reset usage stats' and scope 'all or for one server', distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_get_usage which reads stats.
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?
Description mentions 'useful for testing or re-baselining' implying appropriate contexts, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
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?
Discloses that it is a lazy loading search that returns a ranked list (name, desc, score, tags). No annotations provided, but description does not mention side effects or safety; assumes read-only. Could be more explicit about no destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at 4 sentences. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. The last sentence about inspiration is slightly extraneous but not harmful.
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?
Explains purpose, usage, and output. Lacks details on query syntax, limit effect, and error handling. Since output schema exists, return values are covered, but tool behavior could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). Description only refers to 'free-text query' for the query parameter and mentions output format but not limit. Insufficient to clarify parameter usage beyond basic intent.
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 it searches the catalogue for servers/tools using free-text query. Distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing lazy loading pattern for on-demand discovery, avoiding context bloat.
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?
Explains when to use (on-demand discovery to find specific capabilities) and what to do after (use proxy_activate_server or handshake). No explicit exclusions but enough context for selection.
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 should disclose behavior. It implies a read operation ('list') and mentions output (tool counts), but lacks details on whether data is cached, response size, or authentication requirements. Adequate but minimal.
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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. Perfectly concise while conveying core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the operation. It could explicitly contrast with siblings, but overall it provides enough context for a simple listing 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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter info; it correctly states the tool's action. No additional meaning required beyond 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 lists currently mounted MCP servers and provides estimated tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('mounted MCP servers'), distinguishing it from siblings like proxy_list_available_servers.
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 (e.g., proxy_list_available_servers for unmounted servers, proxy_list_tools for specific server tools). The description is insufficient for an agent to decide between 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?
Annotations are missing, so description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (listing tools, optional filter) but does not mention any side effects, performance implications, or error handling. Adequately minimal for a simple read operation.
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 the core action. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality but could briefly mention the return format, though the output schema likely handles that.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the server_name parameter's purpose—filtering by child server. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type definition.
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 all registered tools and optionally filters by server_name, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list servers or search tools.
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 siblings like proxy_search_tools or proxy_list_active_servers. The use case is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains parameter-level behavior (eager mounts immediately, lean uses LAP with graceful fallback) but does not disclose broader behavioral traits such as permissions required, destructiveness (e.g., whether it overwrites existing servers), or what happens after activation. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.
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 at roughly 140 words with a lead sentence and a well-structured bullet list for arguments. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers input semantics well but lacks context on error handling, network requirements, and what the output represents. The output schema may compensate, but the description itself is only moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must and does fully explain all 5 parameters in a clear 'Args' section. It adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'spec_type' values, 'lean' LAP behavior, 'eager' immediate mounting).
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: 'Generate an MCP server from an OpenAPI/GraphQL spec and activate it.' It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes from siblings like proxy_activate_server, which activates an existing server rather than generating one from a spec.
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?
While the description implies the tool is used when you have a spec to generate a server, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like proxy_activate_server. No explicit context for when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deactivation effect and budget freeing but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter description. No unnecessary words; but the 'Args:' style is slightly redundant given the schema.
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 simplicity, one parameter, and existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It covers the action and parameter source adequately.
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 description compensates for zero schema description coverage by explicitly telling the user to get the server name from proxy.list_active_servers(), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.
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 deactivates/unmounts a server to free up tool budget, with specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_activate_server.
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 advises that the server name should be obtained from proxy.list_active_servers(), providing a clear workflow hint. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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 explains security restriction on stdio, optional activation, and parameter defaults. Could elaborate on duplicate name handling, but covers key behavioral traits.
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?
Concise one-line summary followed by structured Args list. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and presence of output schema, description covers core functionality and constraints. Could mention error cases (e.g., duplicate name) or behavior when activate_now is false, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. The Args block explains each parameter's purpose, allowed values (e.g., runtime only sse/http), and defaults, adding significant value.
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 registers a custom MCP server, distinguishing from sibling tools that handle activation or catalogue-based servers.
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?
Provides guidance on accepted runtimes (SSE/HTTP) and explicitly restricts stdio for security. Does not mention when to use alternatives like proxy_activate_from_spec, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the filter_tag parameter can act as a free-text query and uses search_servers for discovery, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. No annotation contradictions are present.
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, front-loading the purpose and then explaining the parameter. No extraneous or redundant 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?
The description adequately covers the purpose and parameter semantics. Given the simple tool and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete, though it could mention the output format explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the parameter's dual role as a tag filter or free-text query, significantly adding meaning beyond the type and default value.
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 the resource 'MCP servers in the catalogue that are not yet mounted', effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'proxy_list_active_servers' which lists already mounted servers.
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 when to use this tool (to list unmounted servers) and implicitly contrasts with the sibling for active servers. While not explicit about alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the defer mechanism, the creation of a `_load` tool, and the eager option. Missing details on idempotency or error behavior if server already active, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.
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: one sentence for purpose, then a bullet-like explanation of behavior and parameters. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.
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 sibling tools and an output schema exists, the description covers activation behavior and parameter details sufficiently. The lack of output description is acceptable because the output schema provides that information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides essential parameter meaning. It explains 'name' as the server name from proxy.list_available_servers() and 'eager' as immediate spawn vs deferral, adding value beyond the schema's type/default.
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 specifies the action 'Activate (mount) a server from the catalogue by name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_list_available_servers (listing) and proxy_deactivate_server (deactivation). The verb and resource are explicit.
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 default behavior (deferred stub) and the alternative (eager=True), plus references proxy.list_available_servers() for valid names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if server already active), though the purpose itself differentiates from siblings.
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:

[![DynamicMCPProxy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HappyMonkeyAI/DynamicMCPProxy/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HappyMonkeyAI/DynamicMCPProxy)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![DynamicMCPProxy MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HappyMonkeyAI/DynamicMCPProxy/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HappyMonkeyAI/DynamicMCPProxy)

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/HappyMonkeyAI/DynamicMCPProxy'

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