BeeBoo MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The tools are cleanly separated into three functional groups: approvals (check, request, list), knowledge base (add, list, search), and work requests (create, list). There is no overlap in functionality between these groups or within each group.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfect and consistent naming pattern: 'beeboo_' prefix followed by resource name (approval/knowledge/request) and action verb (check/request/list/add/search/create). The pattern is uniformly applied across all 8 tools with no deviations in style or structure.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of handling approvals, knowledge management, and work requests. Each tool earns its place by providing distinct functionality within these three domains, neither feeling too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides excellent coverage for the three domains, with CRUD-like operations for each: approvals (request, check, list), knowledge (add, list, search), and work requests (create, list). Minor gaps include no update/delete operations for knowledge entries or work requests, but agents can work around this limitation.
Average 3.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('Check the status') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format includes (e.g., status values like 'pending', 'approved'), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., status details, timestamps) or behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.
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% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The approval request ID to check'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Check the status of an approval request' with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('approval request'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'beeboo_approval_request' (likely for creating requests) and 'beeboo_approvals_list' (likely for listing approvals), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing approval request ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'beeboo_approvals_list' for broader status checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new entry' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the addition is immediate or pending approval, potential rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like approval workflows suggested by sibling tools. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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% description coverage, with clear documentation for title, content, and tags parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'new entry to the BeeBoo knowledge base', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like beeboo_knowledge_list or beeboo_knowledge_search, which handle reading rather than adding entries.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether approval is needed (hinted by sibling tools like beeboo_approval_request), or clarify its role relative to other knowledge base tools like beeboo_knowledge_search for finding entries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects like whether this is a real-time search, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or pagination behavior. The mention of 'semantic search' is helpful but insufficient.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter search tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are ranked, whether there are limitations on query complexity, or how to interpret search results. The mention of 'semantic search' is the only contextual element provided.
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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented as accepting natural language. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'semantic search' which contextualizes the query parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('BeeBoo knowledge base for information'), with the method 'using semantic search' providing specific implementation detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'beeboo_knowledge_list' which might also retrieve knowledge base content.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'beeboo_knowledge_list' or 'beeboo_knowledge_add'. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this search functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing with optional filtering but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or whether it's read-only. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all work requests') and adds the optional filter detail. There is no wasted wording, and it's 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'work requests' entail, the scope of 'all', how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a list tool with no structured support, more context is needed to fully understand its operation.
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%, with the parameter 'status' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and description). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional status filter but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all work requests') and resource ('work requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'beeboo_request_create' (creation vs listing) and 'beeboo_approvals_list' (requests vs approvals), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The optional status filter is mentioned, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering, or comparisons with siblings like 'beeboo_approvals_list' or 'beeboo_knowledge_search'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in (e.g., paginated list), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'List all approval requests' establishes the purpose, and 'with optional status filter' adds the key parameter context without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each approval request, whether results are paginated, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context about the return format would be helpful.
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 mentions the 'optional status filter' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter already has a clear description with enum values), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already documented in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all approval requests') with a specific scope ('with optional status filter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'beeboo_requests_list' or 'beeboo_approval_check', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'beeboo_requests_list' and 'beeboo_approval_check' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for approval-specific requests versus general requests, or whether it should be used instead of checking individual approvals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all knowledge base entries', implying a read-only operation that retrieves all entries without filtering. However, it doesn't describe potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope or limits), leaving significant 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or sibling differentiation. For a list operation, it should ideally mention scope or limitations, but it meets the basic requirement for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all knowledge base entries' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('knowledge base entries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'beeboo_knowledge_search', which might also retrieve knowledge entries but with filtering capabilities.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'beeboo_knowledge_search' or 'beeboo_knowledge_add'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'queue up tasks' implying a write operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is immediate or asynchronous, error handling, or what happens after submission (e.g., notification triggers). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, response format), doesn't explain return values, and provides minimal context beyond basic usage, making it inadequate for fully informed tool selection and 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (title, description, priority) with details like enum values for priority. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a work request') and resource ('for the team'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'beeboo_approval_request' or 'beeboo_requests_list', which might handle related request operations, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this to queue up tasks that need human attention or execution,' which suggests context for when to apply it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or direct alternatives, such as how it differs from 'beeboo_approval_request' for approvals or 'beeboo_requests_list' for viewing requests, leaving the agent to infer distinctions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool is for requesting approval (implying a human-in-the-loop workflow) and mentions 'potentially impactful operation,' hinting at risk or sensitivity. However, it lacks details on response format, timeout behavior, error conditions, or how approvals are processed, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a human-approval workflow with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens after submission). For a tool without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more context on the approval process.
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%, with both parameters ('title' and 'description') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format or best practices for the parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the specific action ('Request human approval') and the resource ('for an action'), with a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'beeboo_approval_check' (which likely checks status) and 'beeboo_approvals_list' (which lists approvals), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 this tool: 'Use this when you need explicit permission before proceeding with a potentially impactful operation.' This provides clear context for invocation and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'beeboo_request_create' (which might be for general requests) or 'beeboo_approval_check' (for checking status).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TGM-Ventures/beeboo-mcp'

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