bearer-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: projects (create, get, search), deployments, API keys (list, rotate), metrics, logs, diagnostics, and connectivity. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_project, search_logs, rotate_api_key). The only deviation is 'echo', which lacks a noun object, but this is a minor utility and does not undermine the overall pattern.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a platform management API. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of project and deployment management, observability, and diagnostics, without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The server covers project creation, retrieval, search, and deployment, but lacks update/delete operations for projects and API key creation/deletion. Deployment status tracking is also missing. These are notable gaps that agents may need to work around.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It states that it returns structured results and lists checks, but it never explicitly says whether this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, or whether any special permissions or rate limits apply. The word 'run' could even imply side effects, creating ambiguity.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds detail in a structured list-like fashion. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?
For a tool with a single parameter, a clear purpose, and an output schema (which is noted as present), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool checks and that it returns structured results, leaving the output schema to define return values. The only minor gap is explicit usage guidance, which is already captured under the usage dimension.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers projectId fully ('The project ID to run diagnostics on'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage. No parameter information is missing.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('a comprehensive health diagnostic on a project'). It lists concrete aspects checked (connectivity, recent errors, configuration validity, resource utilization) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_metrics or search_logs by being a holistic diagnostic rather than a focused metric or log query.
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 when to use this tool—when you need an overall health check of a project—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer search_logs or get_metrics instead. It is adequate but lacks explicit usage boundaries.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the deployment pipeline is simulated and that a deployment ID is returned, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens after the simulation, leaving gaps in transparency.
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, effectively communicating the core action, the simulation nature, and the return value. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and front-loaded.
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 and no output schema, the description explains the return value (deployment ID) but does not detail the response structure, possible errors, or specific simulation behaviors. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves, such as how the environment or commit SHA interact with the simulation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a deployment for a project to a target environment, using specific verbs and resources. It also mentions the simulation aspect, distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are focused on project creation, API keys, metrics, logs, and diagnostics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a deployment needs to be triggered, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It is not misleading, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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 the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: keys are masked and full values only appear at creation time. This is valuable beyond the basic 'list' semantics, though it omits any auth/permission context.
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 fluff, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral nuance (masked keys). It could mention what happens with no keys or any return format, but is sufficiently complete for common use.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (projectId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all API keys for a project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rotate_api_key or create_project.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies listing keys for a project but gives no exclusions or mentions of related tools like rotate_api_key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (creation) and that it returns the created project with its assigned ID. However, it does not mention potential side effects, uniqueness constraints, or whether the operation is synchronous, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The key information is front-loaded: what the tool does and what it returns. 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?
For a simple create tool with a well-defined schema and clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the outcome and return value. The lack of detailed behavioral caveats is a minor gap, but overall the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new project in the platform' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_projects and get_project which are read operations. The added return value info reinforces purpose.
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 makes the usage context explicit: use this when you need to create a new project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clear action plus the nature of sibling tools makes the appropriate use case obvious.
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 carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the project is not found.
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 sentence that immediately states the operation and scope without any filler. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.
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 one parameter, an output schema, and a simple read-only retrieval, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and context. The sibling tools provide sufficient contrast, and the description is complete for this simple 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?
The schema already fully describes the projectId parameter with an example. The description adds 'by its ID' which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not introduce new semantic detail 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 retrieves full details for a single project by ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'project' are specific, and the scope 'single project by its ID' distinguishes it from search_projects.
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 a clear usage context: use this tool when you have a project ID and need full details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_projects for finding projects without an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: immediate invalidation of the old key, return of the new key value, and the fact that this is the only time the full key is visible. This is valuable for a destructive, security-sensitive 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 concise sentences front-load the core action and include essential behavioral warnings. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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?
Given the simple single-parameter tool, the description fully explains the outcome (new key returned), a crucial side effect (old key invalidated), and a security note (only time full key visible). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter keyId is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rotate (regenerate) an existing API key') and the resource (API key). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_api_keys, which only lists keys without rotating them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need a new key value or the full key), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_api_keys for viewing key metadata. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only search operation (via 'search'), the available filters, and the ordering ('most recent'). It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but these are not critical for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds relevant detail about filters and result ordering.
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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains behavior, filters, and result ordering. It lacks explicit mention of return format or time range constraints, but these are not critical for a straightforward log search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds context by mapping filters to user language (project, severity, free-text) but does not introduce new 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 specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('application log entries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_projects. The resource is explicit and unique among the listed siblings.
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 states the tool filters by project, severity level, or free-text query, and returns the most recent matches, giving a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are paginated and include metadata, which are useful behavioral traits beyond the name. However, it does not detail the metadata contents or any edge-case behavior, so it is not exhaustive.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then the behavior (pagination/metadata). No unnecessary words or repetition; every clause 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?
The tool has six optional parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the core purpose and result behavior, and the output schema exists. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and understand pagination. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but the search context is clear.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions filtering by name, language, status, or tags, which overlaps with schema descriptions but adds no extra semantics. It does not clarify the 'ANY tag' behavior or the full-text query details, relying on 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 function: searching for projects by specific criteria (name, language, status, tags). It uses a specific verb ('search') and names the resource ('projects'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_project (single project) or search_logs (logs). The listing of filter criteria adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to find projects due to the listed criteria) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It gives clear context for usage without comparing to siblings or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provided, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes that the tool echoes back input and implies no side effects, which is appropriate for a simple test tool. The authentication check context adds transparency about its expected use without contradicting any 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 only two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and the purpose in the second. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool of this low complexity, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and the schema fully covers the parameter. No output schema is needed, and the description sufficiently covers all necessary context for a simple echo 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?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already fully explains the 'text' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the text is echoed back, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Echoes back') and resource ('the text you send'). It also provides an additional purpose ('connectivity and authentication check'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that deal with projects, deployments, and API keys.
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 the tool (as a connectivity and authentication check), providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple echo test tool this is sufficient.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the time range, the granularity (hourly data points), and the data fields returned. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior, but the focus on returning metrics strongly implies it is a safe read operation; no side effects are indicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that lead with the action and scope, then describe the return format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema is present. The description covers the purpose, the time window, and the type of data returned, which is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It doesn't need to detail return formats since the output schema exists.
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 input schema already fully describes the sole parameter (projectId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'a project', so it doesn't improve on the schema's coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 action ('Get usage and performance metrics'), the target resource ('a project'), and a specific time window ('last 24 hours'). It also differentiates from siblings like get_project and search_logs by specifying the metric data (request counts, errors, latency percentiles).
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 clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve recent usage and performance metrics for a project. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific scope ('last 24 hours') implies when it would be appropriate. Sibling tools like get_project are for different purposes, though this is not stated.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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