BIP Monitor MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct: start/stop/detach handle lifecycle, get_errors/get_logs/get_status handle monitoring, clear_errors resets. The main ambiguity is between get_errors and get_logs, which both retrieve logs with filtering; an agent might confuse which holds runtime errors vs application logs. Otherwise the boundaries are fairly clear.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tools follow a strong verb_noun pattern (start_dev_server, get_errors, clear_errors, stop_dev_server, get_status, get_logs). The minor inconsistency is the mixed use of 'dev_server' as a noun (start_dev_server, stop_dev_server, attach_to_dev_server, detach_dev_server) versus 'attach_to_dev_server' and 'detach_dev_server' which use a two-part verb. Still, the pattern is readable and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
8 tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a dev server monitoring server. Each tool earns its place covering start, stop, attach, detach, status, errors, clear, and logs. Slightly fewer could still work but this is appropriately sized.
Completeness4/5
The lifecycle is well-covered: start, stop, attach, detach, status check, error retrieval, log retrieval, and reset. A minor gap is the absence of an obvious 'restart' tool, but agents can compose stop+start. The coverage of monitoring operations (errors, logs, status) is solid.
Average 3.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
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
- 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It hints at what 'attach' means (enables status bar visibility) but doesn't explain side effects, whether the attachment is persistent, what happens on process exit, or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., must the server already be running?). The parenthetical is helpful context but insufficient for a stateful operation.
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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose before the parenthetical context. No wasted words, though the single-sentence format limits depth. Appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.
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 stateful operation with no annotations, no output schema, and closely related sibling tools (start/stop/detach_dev_server, get_status), the description is thin. It doesn't explain what happens structurally, how the attachment affects get_status or get_logs behavior, or whether stopping the server auto-detaches. A stateful tool with this sibling set warrants more operational detail.
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 the logFile parameter well-described with type and example path. The description confirms the log file's role ('where dev server output is being written'). At 100% coverage and only 1 parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate - the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description adds modest confirmation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Attach monitoring to an existing dev server process' with a specific verb (attach) and resource (dev server process). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like detach_dev_server or get_status - the complementary relationship with detach_dev_server is implied but not explicit. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 gives a hint about when to use it ('when started with Bash tool') but only vaguely. It doesn't clarify when to choose this over start_dev_server (vs creating a new one) or how it relates to detach_dev_server. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools named, despite having closely related siblings.
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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'monitor it for errors' which hints at a persistent/ongoing behavior, but doesn't clarify whether this tool blocks, spawns a background process, or what state it leaves the server in. It doesn't explain what 'monitoring' entails or whether it interacts with get_errors/clear_errors.
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?
One concise sentence conveying two actions (start and monitor). No waste. Could arguably split monitoring into more detail, but for length it's efficient.
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?
A dev-server lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain return behavior, whether it blocks or returns immediately, how startup failures surface, or how monitoring relates to the sibling error/log tools. For a stateful lifecycle operation with several related siblings, more guidance is needed.
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 coverage is 100% and there's only one parameter (cwd), which is self-explanatory ('Working directory for the app'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with a single, clearly-described required parameter, the schema does adequate heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb (Start) plus the resource (Next.js dev server), with a clear secondary action (monitor it for errors). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like stop_dev_server and get_status. However, it doesn't fully capture the 'monitor' aspect's purpose or scope beyond a general mention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like attach_to_dev_server or get_status. It doesn't say whether this is the tool to call at the start of a dev workflow or whether monitoring implies ongoing access. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
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's a mutation tool, but it doesn't state whether stopping is reversible, what side effects occur (kills processes? preserves state?), or what the response signals. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence, zero waste. It's efficiently phrased, though one or two clarifying clauses about side effects could be added without bloating it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), but it's a state-changing operation. Given the sibling set includes detach_dev_server (which sounds similar in effect), the description doesn't fully disambiguate stopping from detaching. For a simple operation it's mostly adequate, but the ambiguity around consequences of 'stop' leaves it slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric since there's nothing for the description to add meaning to. The description correctly makes no claim about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop the running dev server' uses a clear verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_dev_server, but it's less specific than it could be - it doesn't clarify what happens to child processes, whether state is preserved, or what 'stop' entails beyond terminating.
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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like detach_dev_server and get_status, an agent might wonder whether detaching or checking status is more appropriate than stopping. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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, and the description gives no behavioral disclosure beyond the bare action. 'Clear' implies destructive behavior, but it doesn't state whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires the server to be running, whether it affects only errors or other state, or whether it has side effects on connected sessions. For a destructive operation with zero annotations, this is 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?
A single clean sentence with zero waste. It states the action and the outcome efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), so the description covers the core operation. However, for a destructive action with no annotations, it would benefit from noting confirmations, scope of what gets cleared, and relationship to the server lifecycle. It's minimally adequate but leaves behavioral ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the description bears little parameter burden. With no parameters to document, there's nothing meaningful to add; the baseline 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate since semantic gaps are impossible.
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 'Clear the error log and start fresh' clearly identifies the verb (clear), resource (error log), and the effect (reset to a clean state). It's unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from get_errors or get_logs in terms of read-vs-write semantics.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't clarify whether errors are distinct from general logs, when one might want to clear the error log, or any prerequisites (e.g., server running). The sibling tools like get_errors and get_logs suggest a logging context, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get...') and introduces a filtering concept, which is some useful context. However, it doesn't disclose whether errors are fetched live or from a buffered store, whether calling before server start yields an error or empty results, or the return format. For a read operation with limited side effects, this is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs purpose and filtering into minimal words. No fluff. It doesn't elaborate on return format or categories, but it stays tight and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
This is a simple read tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema. Given low complexity, the description adequately captures the core purpose and filtering capability. However, without annotations or any guidance about server prerequisites (a concern given sibling start_dev_server/stop_dev_server), it's slightly under-specified regarding operational context, but remains acceptable for a 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, category) are already fully documented. The description adds only the generic mention of 'filtering options' which corroborates the category param but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get recent errors from the dev server') and mentions filtering options. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_logs — the distinction is implied by the verb 'errors' vs 'logs' and the category filter.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like get_logs, get_status, and start_dev_server suggest related operations, but the description doesn't clarify when errors are available (e.g., only when a dev server is running, or whether start_dev_server must precede this). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 logs are retrieved from the end ('lines' param defaults to tail), which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether logs are truncated, what format lines take, or any side effects. The case-insensitive filter behavior is mentioned, but the overall behavioral profile is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get application logs'). No wasted words. Could arguably add a sibling distinction sentence, but what's present is efficient and clear.
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 2-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given sibling tools like get_errors and the absence of annotations, slightly more context about the log source/scope or the distinction from error-specific retrieval would improve completeness. The tool has zero required parameters and simple types, so complexity is low, but the sibling ambiguity is a gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (lines with default and max, filter as case-insensitive text). The description adds 'flexible line limits' and 'optional filtering' which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't add meaningfully new semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gets application logs with line limits and filtering. The verb+resource (get logs) is specific, and it mentions flexible line limits and optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the 'get_errors' sibling, though 'errors' vs 'logs' is a natural distinction the agent could infer.
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 it (when application logs are needed) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_errors instead. There's no guidance on which tool to prefer for error-specific vs general logging scenarios, and no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The clarification that the process is NOT stopped is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after detaching (can logs still be fetched? does get_status still show it?), or whether detaching is reversible via re-attach.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and adds a critical clarifying parenthetical. Zero waste; every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The key semantic distinction from stop_dev_server is conveyed. However, given the sibling complexity (attach/start/stop in one family), a bit more context about the operational flow (e.g., that attach must precede detach, or what state results) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object), so there's nothing to document. Per the guidance, a 0-param tool gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics for a no-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Stop watching') with a clear resource ('an attached dev server'), and crucially clarifies that it does NOT stop the actual process. This provides distinction from the sibling stop_dev_server tool. However, the purpose could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting against stop_dev_server in the text itself.
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 the tool is for when the user wants to stop watching without terminating the process, and the sibling set includes both attach_to_dev_server and stop_dev_server which provides context. However, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance. The parenthetical does distinguish it from stop_dev_server, giving moderate usage context.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals this is a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate behavioral transparency. However, it doesn't describe what the status output contains (e.g., running/stopped states, health details) or whether it can fail if server is not running.
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 a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded, stating the purpose immediately. It is minimal but complete for its scope, though it could add a sentence about what status values are returned.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, there's a gap: it doesn't describe what 'status' means or what the return value contains. Given a complex ecosystem of sibling dev-server tools, a bit more context about what statuses are possible would help the agent interpret the result. Still, the simplicity of the tool warrants a moderate score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and there's nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, as there are none to document.
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 'Get current status of the dev server' uses a clear verb+resource combination, telling the agent this tool reads the dev server's status. It distinguishes from siblings like start/stop_dev_server (which are mutations) and get_errors/get_logs (which are different resources), though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiation.
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 context implies this is the read-only status check tool among siblings like start_dev_server, stop_dev_server, get_errors, and get_logs. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_logs for diagnostic output versus get_status for health state). The usage context is implied by the sibling set but not articulated.
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

BIP Monitor MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![BIP Monitor MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Bip-App/bip-monitor-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Bip-App/bip-monitor-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![BIP Monitor MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Bip-App/bip-monitor-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/The-Bip-App/bip-monitor-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/The-Bip-App/bip-monitor-mcp'

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