Hive Web

by YegorMy

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Tools are clearly split into 'action_web_' for live browser interactions and 'static_web_' for static operations. Each tool has a distinct purpose (click, navigate, snapshot, search, etc.) with no overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'category_action' pattern in snake_case, with prefixes indicating live vs. static operations. The naming is predictable and intuitive.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is a reasonable count for a web automation and scraping server. It covers essential operations without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows: navigation, clicking, typing, snapshotting, searching, and extraction. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wait or form element selection), but agents can work around them using snapshots and existing actions.
Average 3.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 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?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'live Playwright browser session' implying interactivity, but fails to mention whether the browser is visible, resource implications, or what happens after creation. The 'headless' parameter suggests configurability, but the description doesn't elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, making it less helpful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool creates a session and has an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the session lifecycle, how it interacts with sibling tools like action_web_navigate, or what the output contains. The lack of context makes it insufficient for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not mention 'name' or 'headless' or explain their purpose, leaving the agent to infer entirely from the schema.
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 'Create a live Playwright browser session', specifying the verb and resource. It also hints at the use case with 'for interactive sites/forms', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like static_web_extract or navigation actions.
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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with static tools that might be more appropriate for non-interactive sites.
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 must carry full behavioral weight. It only states 'Read a local artifact' but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing artifact), idempotency, or whether it requires a specific session state. For a read-only tool, it lacks clarity on what happens in edge cases.
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, front-loaded with the key action. It wastes no words. However, it under-specifies important details, which slightly reduces the score from maximum.
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 has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes an 'artifact', how to obtain an artifact_id, or the relationship to the output. The agent cannot confidently use this tool without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'name' or 'artifact_id'. The default 'content.md' for name hints at a filename, but no explanation is given. The agent has no guidance on how to supply these values.
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 it reads a local artifact created by a specific action. The verb 'Read' and resource 'local artifact' are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like action_web_click or static_web_extract by focusing on retrieval of a previously created artifact.
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 versus alternatives (e.g., static_web_extract). It does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use. The agent has no context to decide between reading an artifact and extracting content.
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 must disclose behaviors. It only warns about passwords but does not mention error handling, typing speed, or what happens if the element 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is useful, though a bit more detail would not harm conciseness.
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 parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. An output schema is present, so return values are covered, but usage context like element identification strategy is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It hints at 'ref' and 'selector' but does not explain them, nor does it cover 'clear', 'text', or 'session_id'.
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 specifies the action (type/fill text) and the target (snapshot ref or selector), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'action_web_click' and 'action_web_press'. However, it could more explicitly state it operates on web elements.
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 includes a security warning ('Do not send passwords/secrets'), which provides a when-not-to-use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'action_web_press' for key presses.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'stateless' and use of local Firecrawl, but fails to disclose important behaviors: what happens with dynamic pages, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is too sparse for safe invocation.
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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to cover parameters and usage context.
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?
Despite having an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description omits critical context: how artifact_id relates to sibling static_web_get_artifact, what format options exist, and constraints on URLs. For a tool in a family, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no param descriptions in schema). The description adds no meaning to the three parameters (url, format, max_tokens). It only hints at markdown output but does not explain format options or the role of max_tokens. This leaves agents guessing about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Cheap stateless page render/extract' using local Firecrawl, and specifies what it returns ('markdown plus artifact_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like static_web_search (search) and static_web_get_artifact (get by ID), 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies it's for quick, stateless extraction but does not contrast with interactive sibling tools (e.g., action_web_navigate) or other static_web tools. Agents lack context for optimal selection.
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. It only states 'close', which indicates termination but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), error conditions, or resource cleanup. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though it could add more value without becoming verbose.
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, low parameter coverage, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, behavior upon invocation, or the context in which the tool is used, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. It fails to explain its purpose, format, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Close a live Playwright browser session' uses a specific verb ('close') and identifies the resource ('live Playwright browser session'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like action_web_session_create (create) and action_web_navigate (navigate).
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 the tool is used to end a browser session, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or what to use instead for other session-related operations).
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?
The description is straightforward for a simple key press action, but lacks details on behavior such as whether key release is automatic or if special key combinations are supported. No annotations exist to supplement.
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 very concise, using a single sentence that front-loads the action and examples, but it borders on under-specification.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context about key value formats and the necessity of session_id, limiting its completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about the parameters (key and session_id), leaving the agent without guidance on valid key values or the role of session_id.
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 presses a keyboard key and provides specific examples (Enter, Escape, ArrowDown), distinguishing it from sibling tools like action_web_click and action_web_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pressing single keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like action_web_type for text input or action_web_click for mouse actions.
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 the output nature (visible text and refs) and what is excluded (full HTML), but does not mention side effects, session requirements, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 of 11 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without becoming verbose.
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?
The description is too minimal for a tool in a web interaction suite. It does not explain how to integrate with other tools (e.g., navigate before snapshot), what 'interactive' means, or how the output schema provides return values. Parameter explanations are absent, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (max_tokens and session_id). It neither explains the purpose of max_tokens (likely controlling output size) nor the need for session_id, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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 returns a compact interactive snapshot of visible text and refs, not full HTML. It uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'snapshot', and distinguishes from sibling tools like navigation or clicking by focusing on content extraction.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. While it implies it should be used after navigation to extract page text, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 provided, and the description only covers basic behavior. It does not disclose what happens when both url and search_query are provided, error handling, or state changes, 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 sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main purpose but lacks detail on parameter precedence, error conditions, and output expectations. Given the presence of an output schema (unseen), it may be partially complete, but as standalone it is insufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that url is for direct navigation and search_query is to find the URL, adding meaning beyond names. However, session_id is not explained.
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 navigates a live session to a URL, and also offers an alternative to use a search query to find the URL first, distinguishing it from sibling tools like static_web_search.
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 scenarios (direct URL or search) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'stateless' and 'cheap' but omits critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, caching behavior, or error handling. The term 'compact normalized results' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences and front-loads the key information ('Cheap stateless web search'). Could be slightly improved by structuring parameter hints, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description mentions 'artifact_id' but does not explain its purpose or how to use it (e.g., with sibling static_web_get_artifact). The output format is not described. For a tool with an output schema, the description is moderately complete but lacks clarity on return structure and usage flow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the meaning or effect of any parameter (query, limit, max_tokens). The agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 ('web search'), the resource ('local SearXNG'), and the outcome ('compact normalized results and an artifact_id'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like interactive browser actions (action_web_*) and extraction (static_web_extract).
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 usage for quick, stateless, non-interactive searches via 'Cheap stateless web search', hinting at when to use over interactive siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or precise 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (sensitive target confirmation) but omits other important details like whether clicks wait for page load, error handling, or element visibility requirements.
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 with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the critical information is 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?
The tool has an output schema but the description does not explain return values. It covers core functionality but lacks detail on preconditions, error states, or post-click behavior. Adequate for a simple action but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies ref, selector, and confirms_sensitive but leaves session_id undocumented. This adds some meaning but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
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: 'Click by snapshot ref or selector'. It also notes a specific use case for sensitive targets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like action_web_navigate or action_web_type.
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 gives limited guidance: it explains when to set confirm_sensitive=true for sensitive targets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like action_web_press or action_web_click, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/YegorMy/hive-web'

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