Memlord

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.8
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but retrieve_memory (semantic/text search) and recall_memory (time-based search) overlap in functionality since both support semantic search. The descriptions clarify the distinction (time expressions vs general search), but the similar verbs and overlapping capabilities could cause agents to select the wrong tool initially.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (delete_memory, list_workspaces, store_memory, etc.). The verb choices clearly indicate the action (get vs retrieve vs recall vs search), and the resource naming is uniform throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is an ideal count for a memory management server. The set includes full CRUD operations, multiple specialized search methods (semantic, temporal, tag-based), workspace enumeration, and memory movement—without bloat or redundant wrappers.
Completeness4/5
Covers the full memory lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) with comprehensive search capabilities across semantic, full-text, temporal, and tag dimensions. Minor gaps exist in workspace administration (no create/delete workspace), though this may be intentional scope limitation assuming workspaces are provisioned externally.
Average 4.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.
This server has been verified by its author.
View related servers

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?
Annotations provide no destructive or idempotent hints. The description adds that only provided fields change, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or conflict handling. Little beyond basic mutation 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?
Description is short and front-loaded with the key purpose. Follow-up on new_name and workspace is clear. Could be more structured but efficient.
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 7 parameters and output schema existing, the description covers core behavior but ignores optional fields (tags, content, metadata). Adequate for basic use, but gaps remain for complex inputs.
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 low (14%), with only memory_type described. The description adds meaning for new_name and workspace, but content, tags, and metadata remain undocumented. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates an existing memory by name, with partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed'). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_memory, get_memory, and store_memory.
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 use for partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed') but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like store_memory for creation or delete_memory for removal. No exclusions or context are provided.
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 read-only; description adds that it returns full content and ordering, providing useful context 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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key details.
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?
Describes ordering and full content; does not mention pagination or filtering despite parameter presence, but output schema exists. 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no information about parameters; with 25% schema coverage, it should compensate but does not. Schema descriptions are adequate but the tool description ignores them.
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 the tool browses all memories ordered by creation date (newest first) and returns full content, distinguishing it from query-based tools like recall_memory.
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 says to use for enumeration or audit without a specific query, implying it's not for searching specific content; lacks explicit mention of 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?
Annotations indicate non-destructive, but 'move' typically removes from source. The description adds workspace access requirement but does not clarify if memory is removed from source, potential side effects, or atomicity. There is a mild contradiction with destructiveHint=false.
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 four lines covering the action and parameters. However, parameter descriptions are listed separately rather than integrated, slightly reducing flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers parameters and basic action, it does not explain return values (despite output schema existing), error cases, or behavior on name conflict. For a 3-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description explains each parameter with purpose and constraints (e.g., 'to_workspace: must be a member with write access', 'from_workspace: disambiguate source'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, especially with 0% schema description 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Move a memory') and the target ('to a different to_workspace'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_memory or store_memory by focusing on relocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for moving a memory between workspaces but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like update_memory for changing properties.
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 already indicate destructiveHint=true, so description does not need to repeat destructiveness. It adds useful disambiguation context, but no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states primary action, second adds optional guidance. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
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 simple tool with 2 params and output schema present, description covers core operation and disambiguation. Missing details like permissions or confirmation, but adequate for 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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. Description adds the purpose of workspace (disambiguation), but does not describe name parameter type or constraints, leaving gaps.
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 'Delete a memory by name', specifying verb and resource. Sibling tools (get_memory, list_memories, etc.) have different purposes, so no ambiguity.
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?
Description explains when to use workspace parameter for disambiguation, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like update_memory if deletion is not intended.
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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'names + metadata only' and specifies the search method, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste.
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 covers the core purpose, alternative tool, and workspace filtering but omits details about memory_type, limit, and similarity_threshold parameters. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but parameter guidance is incomplete.
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 description coverage is low (20%). The description only hints at the workspace parameter and does not explain query, limit, similarity_threshold, or memory_type meanings. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
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: 'Hybrid semantic + full-text search' and specifies what it returns ('names + metadata only'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_memory, which fetches full content.
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 to use get_memory for full content retrieval, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. It also mentions workspace filtering but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
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 idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:false; the description adds specific behavioral context: idempotence, returning existing memory if content exists, and the force parameter skipping near-duplicate checks. No contradiction with 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?
Very concise: two sentences for purpose and idempotence, then bullet-point-style parameter explanations. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters (3 required) and an existing output schema, the description covers idempotence, workspace semantics, and force flag. It lacks explanation of content and tags, but those are either clear from schema or handled by output schema. Overall mostly complete for a creation 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 description coverage is 43% (force, workspace, memory_type have schema descriptions). The description explicitly adds meaning for name, workspace, and force parameters, partially compensating for lacking schema descriptions for content, tags, and metadata. However, not all parameters are addressed.
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 'Save a new memory' and highlights idempotence, distinguishing it from siblings like update_memory and delete_memory by the idempotent behavior and return of existing memory if content matches.
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 explains the workspace and force parameters, and mentions idempotence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recall_memory or search_by_tag. Usage context is implied but not fully differentiated.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns only names and metadata, and that search combines time and semantic expressions. No contradictions with 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?
Three sentences plus examples, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently structured.
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?
Covers main usage, examples, workflow (use get_memory for full content), and workspace filtering. Missing details on n_results and memory_type parameters, but output schema exists to document return values, balancing 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 description explains the 'query' parameter with examples and mentions the 'workspace' parameter. However, it does not cover 'n_results' or 'memory_type', and schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description provides partial but not complete compensation.
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 'Search memories by time expression + semantics. Returns names + metadata only.' It identifies the tool's primary function and its output scope, distinguishing it from get_memory which fetches full content.
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 explicit examples of queries and directs to use get_memory for full content retrieval. Also explains how to limit search to a workspace. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like retrieve_memory or search_by_tag.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool fetches 'full content', reinforcing the read-only nature without contradicting annotations. It provides enough context given the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct role (purpose, usage conditions, exclusions). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers tool purpose, usage conditions, and exclusions. With output schema present, return values don't need description. However, the lack of parameter clarification is a gap, making it slightly incomplete for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. It says 'by numeric ID' but the schema parameter is named 'name', which could confuse an agent. The description should explicitly map 'name' to the numeric ID. This is a missed opportunity to clarify parameter usage.
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 fetches the full content of a single memory by numeric ID, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like retrieve_memory (semantic search) and recall_memory (time-based queries).
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 (only when ID is known, e.g., after retrieve_memory or recall_memory) and when not to use (do not use for search), naming specific alternative tools. This provides clear guidance for 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 already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it lists workspaces the user is a member of (personal + shared), providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
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?
Tool has no parameters, has output schema, annotations cover safety, description covers purpose and scope. Complete for a simple read-only list 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; schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 for 0 parameters, as description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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 tool lists all workspaces the user is a member of, specifying personal and shared. Verb 'List' and resource 'workspaces' are precise. Sibling tools are all memory-related, so no confusion.
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?
Description indicates when to use: to list workspaces. No explicit exclusion or alternatives, but given the tool's self-contained nature and distinct sibling set, the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behaviors: no pagination, case-insensitive tags, and operation semantics. 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?
Highly concise: core purpose in first sentence, operation details in second, alternatives in third. No fluff.
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?
With an output schema present, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage alternatives. Complete for its complexity.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains operation parameter (AND/OR logic) and case-insensitivity, but doesn't elaborate on tags format or uniqueness which is already in 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 'Find memories by exact tag match. Returns all results (no pagination).' It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like retrieve_memory and list_memories.
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 provides when to use (exact tag match with AND/OR operations) and when not to use, suggesting alternatives: retrieve_memory for semantic search and list_memories for paginated single tag browsing.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/MyrikLD/memlord'

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