@qasperai/mcp-server

Official

by QasperAI

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.6
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, getting info, checking availability, booking, sending inquiry, etc. Even the two availability tools differ in scope (specific vs. cross-business next available). No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., book_appointment, check_availability, get_business_info. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a local service discovery and booking platform. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows: search, info, pricing, availability, booking, inquiry. Missing cancellation or booking management, but the inquiry tool can handle custom requests. Minor gap but not critical.
Average 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 8, 2026
- 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by listing exactly what information is returned and stating it's always available. This aligns with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and is informative. However, it is a single long sentence listing many fields, which could be slightly more concise. Still effective.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and that it's always available. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for this type of tool it's sufficient.
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% for the single parameter 'slug', which has detailed instructions to copy verbatim from search_businesses or get_business_info. The tool description does not add further parameter context, so baseline score 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 retrieves the service catalog and lists specific fields (names, descriptions, durations, etc.). It uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_business_info.
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 says 'Always available for any business,' providing context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that it's not for checking availability or booking.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) set a baseline. The description adds valuable context: slug echoing, instruction to ignore UI-only fields, and assurance of availability. No contradictions detected.
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 structured and mostly concise, but a few sentences (e.g., listing every data field) could be tightened. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides usage tips.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all necessary details: what data is returned, how to use slug, and which fields to ignore. It is fully adequate for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already explains the slug parameter well ('Copy it verbatim'), and the tool description reinforces this. The description adds no new semantic meaning 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's purpose: 'Get business information including name, type, service area, contact details, working hours, supported languages, enabled features, and a profile image.' It uses specific verbs ('get') and resources ('business information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on booking, availability, or pricing.
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 advises using 'attributeDetails' to reason about fit and notes that the response echoes the slug for reuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives to other info-gathering tools, missing an opportunity to guide agent decision-making.
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 discloses that the business owner will be notified immediately via every enabled inquiry channel, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate destructiveness and non-idempotence, but the description explains the notification side effect. 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 highly concise with two sentences plus an imperative condition. Every sentence adds value, and the key condition is front-loaded for quick parsing.
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 explains that the business owner will contact the customer directly, completing the mental model for a submission tool without an output schema. It covers what happens after invocation, which is sufficient for this tool's simplicity.
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?
All 5 parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minor guidance (e.g., slug copied verbatim, message include details), but does not significantly augment schema descriptions. Baseline 3 for high 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 defines the tool as sending a general inquiry to a local service business, specifying use cases like questions, custom quotes, or non-bookable issues. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like book_appointment by targeting scenarios that don't fit a specific service.
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 states when to use (customer has non-bookable inquiry) and includes a conditional rule about the business's enabledFeatures. However, it does not contrast with specific siblings like check_availability or find_next_available_appointments, which could further clarify appropriate usage.
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 and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the response includes only businesses with direct booking support, matching service, and available slots - going 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples, caller instructions, and response filtering. Each sentence earns its place without fluff, though it could be slightly more concise.
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 12 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (businesses with direct booking, matching service, available slots). It also provides caller guidance. While it doesn't detail default parameters, the schema covers those.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the agent extracts structured search fields similarly to search_businesses and passes wording in serviceQuery, providing meaningful context 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 finds the next available bookable appointments across local service businesses. It provides specific examples ('find me the next available boat trip', 'who has the soonest dentist appointment') and explains the response criteria, distinguishing it from general business search.
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 tells when to use the tool ('use for requests like...') and how the agent should extract search fields. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, it provides clear context for usage.
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 openWorldHint: true, which align with the description's 'Get a price quote' (read-only). The description adds beyond annotations by specifying that the tool accounts for emergency requests and weekend rates, giving behavioral transparency about pricing rules.
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 two sentences: first sets the purpose, second adds key details. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence 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?
For a simple read-only pricing tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, special pricing rules, and general availability. It omits specifics on the return format, but given annotations and the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. Slightly higher would require mentioning that pricing may vary or that the response includes a quote object.
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 100% for all 4 parameters. The description adds significant value by instructing to copy the slug verbatim from search_businesses or get_business_info, and by contextualizing the isEmergency and requestedDate parameters with mentions of emergency requests and weekend rates. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.
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 'Get a price quote for a specific service from a local business.' The verb 'get' paired with resource 'price quote' is specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like book_appointment, check_availability, etc., which focus on booking or availability, not pricing.
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 provides context on when to use by mentioning 'takes into account emergency requests, weekend rates' and 'always available,' implying this tool handles special pricing scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.
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?
Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical behavioral details: return statuses (pending, confirmed, completed), idempotency via clientRequestId, and cautions about not misinterpreting status. It also explains booking respects bookingStartPolicy and maxParticipants, going 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, but slightly verbose. It front-loads the purpose and returns, then adds usage notes. Could be tightened without losing 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values and usage context. It includes prerequisites, conditional address requirement, idempotency guidance, and status interpretation rules. Completely addresses agent needs.
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?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value: instructs to copy slug verbatim, use dateTime from check_availability, generate clientRequestId once and reuse for dedup, and conditionally provide customerAddress. This far exceeds baseline expectations.
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 books an appointment with a local service business, creates a booking record, and adds to the calendar. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_availability and get_business_info, which are query tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit conditions for use: only call if the business has 'booking' in its enabledFeatures, and only after using check_availability for the dateTime. It also advises when to ask for address. However, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it compared to other tools like send_inquiry, but context makes it 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'attributes defined for the vertical with their possible option values, plus the universal serviceMode options' and explains the refinementAvailable flag behavior. This goes beyond the annotations to describe the output and conditional flow.
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 plus a conditional note, all front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value by explaining usage, output, and integration with search_businesses.
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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (attributes, option values, serviceMode options) and the conditional refinementAvailable flag. Integration with sibling tools is clearly specified.
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% for the single parameter subCategory, which has a detailed description in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 explicitly states 'List the refinement dimensions... available for a specific subcategory' and differentiates from sibling tools by specifying it should be called BEFORE search_businesses for broad queries. The verb 'List' is specific to retrieval, and the resource is clearly defined.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this BEFORE search_businesses when the user's request is broad... so you can politely ask the user whether to narrow by any of these dimensions' and 'If refinementAvailable is false, skip refinement and go directly to search_businesses.' This covers when to use, alternatives, and conditional behavior.
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?
Disclosures beyond annotations: returns available windows based on business free time and bookingStartPolicy, and partially booked slots remain available until full for services with maxParticipants > 1. 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?
Two concise sentences plus a conditional note, no wasted words. Purpose is 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 output schema, the description explains the logic (returns time windows) but does not specify the return structure. However, for a read-only availability check, this is adequate.
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%; description adds value by instructing to copy slug verbatim. The baseline of 3 is exceeded due to this helpful extra guidance.
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 'Check available appointment slots for a specific service at a local business on a given date.' This directly describes the action, resource, and scope, differentiating it from siblings like book_appointment or find_next_available_appointments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'ONLY call this if the business has 'booking' in its enabledFeatures array' and provides an alternative action (use get_business_info contact info) if not. Also explains behavior for services with maxParticipants > 1.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it explains that the server handles SQL filtering, geocoding, ranking, and bucketing, and details result fields (enabledFeatures, attributeDetails, etc.) and fields to ignore (cardChips, etc.). This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent about 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?
The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then parameter instructions, an important note about refinement flow, and result field explanations. While informative, it is somewhat lengthy and could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description is highly complete. It covers how to use the tool in conjunction with get_refinement_options, what to extract and ignore from results, and parameter extraction logic, fully addressing the tool's complexity.
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 100% with descriptions for all parameters, but the description enriches semantics beyond the schema. For subCategory, it advises picking the most specific enum and using 'None' only if necessary. For locationText, it says to pass the user's wording. For lat/lng, it specifies conditions for overriding. These additions provide practical guidance.
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 purpose: 'Search for available local service businesses by structured fields.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local service businesses'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like book_appointment and get_refinement_options by focusing on the search function.
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 provides explicit usage guidelines, including when to first call get_refinement_options for broad requests and when to skip that step. It also instructs the caller on parameter extraction (subCategory, locationText, countryCode) and when to pass lat/lng coordinates, offering clear decision criteria.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/QasperAI/mcp-server'

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