Dynamic Reincarnation Story

by alicenjr

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: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some overlapping purposes that could cause confusion, particularly between handle_user_message and process_user_input which both seem to handle user input processing. However, descriptions help clarify distinctions like start_story vs ask_guidance_questions for different initiation methods.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_guidance_questions, generate_path_introduction, get_story_status) with clear action-object relationships. The only minor deviation is handle_user_message which uses 'handle' instead of a more specific verb, but overall naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this is well-scoped for an interactive story system. Each tool appears to serve a distinct phase in the story lifecycle (initialization, progression, status tracking, reset), and none seem redundant or unnecessary for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core interactive story workflow well: starting, progressing through user input, tracking status, and resetting. A minor gap might be the lack of tools for modifying story parameters or saving/loading states, but the basic narrative flow is fully supported.
Average 2.5/5 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behavioral traits. It mentions routing but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format). For a tool with an output schema, it doesn't hint at return values, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's impact.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with 'Main entry point,' but it's under-specified rather than concise. The two phrases are efficient with zero waste, earning a high score for structure, though the content is lacking.
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 routing entry point, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the routing logic, prerequisites, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent despite the output schema's existence.
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 but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'user_id' or 'message' represent, their formats, or constraints. With 2 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate, as the description fails to provide any parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Main entry point - handle any user message and route accordingly' is tautological with the tool name 'handle_user_message' and only vaguely states what the tool does. It mentions routing but doesn't specify what resources or systems are involved, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_user_input' or 'ask_guidance_questions'.
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 minimal guidance by calling this the 'main entry point,' implying it should be used first, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like 'process_user_input' or 'start_story.' This leaves the agent with unclear direction on tool 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Present' implies a read-only output, but it doesn't specify whether this requires user interaction, what format the questions are in, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations and an output schema, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't fully compensate), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the guidance questions are, their purpose in the context of sibling tools, or behavioral aspects. For a tool in a story-related server, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter (user_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description adds no information about parameters, not even mentioning user_id or its role. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Present the three guidance questions to the user' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ask_guidance_questions'. It doesn't specify what these guidance questions are about, what resource they relate to, or how they differ from sibling tools like 'handle_user_message' or 'process_user_input'. The purpose is vague and lacks 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after starting a story), or exclusions. With siblings like 'handle_user_message' and 'process_user_input', there's no indication of when this specific questioning tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
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 'programmatically' but doesn't explain what the tool does beyond starting a story, such as whether it initializes data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's front-loaded with minimal information, which could be improved by adding more context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks details on behavior and usage. With no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves story initialization, leaving gaps in understanding its full context.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning about the 'user_id' parameter, such as its role or format. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter explanation reduces it to 3, as the schema alone is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's an 'alternative way to start the story programmatically,' which provides a vague purpose (starting a story) but lacks specificity about what 'starting' entails. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'generate_path_introduction' or 'reset_story,' making it tautological by restating the tool name without concrete action details.
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 versus alternatives is provided. The term 'alternative way' implies there might be other methods, but it doesn't specify what those are or under what conditions this tool is preferred, leaving usage unclear.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates narrative, implying a read-only or creative operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has side effects, or details output format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more structured with additional context, but within its brevity, it earns high marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action but lacks details on prerequisites, parameter meaning, or behavioral traits. With output schema covering returns, the description meets a baseline but has clear gaps in context.
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'chosen path' but does not explain the 'user_id' parameter or its role. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to clarify parameter semantics for the single required input.
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's purpose: 'Generate the introduction narrative for the chosen path'. It specifies a verb ('Generate') and resource ('introduction narrative'), but lacks specificity about what a 'path' is or how it relates to siblings like 'record_answers_and_choose_path' or 'start_story'. The purpose is clear but vague in context.
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 (e.g., must a path be chosen first?), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'start_story' or 'record_answers_and_choose_path'. The description offers no usage context beyond the basic action.
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 mentions generating a 'narrative response with options', hinting at output behavior, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavior, but it earns high marks for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values, which helps completeness. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient context about usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. It provides a basic overview but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full role and requirements.
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%, meaning parameters 'user_id' and 'user_input' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names—it doesn't explain what 'user_id' refers to (e.g., a unique identifier) or the expected format/content of 'user_input'. With two required parameters and no compensation in the description, this falls short of the baseline.
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 'process user input and generate narrative response with options', which provides a vague purpose. It mentions a verb ('process') and resource ('user input') but lacks specificity about what kind of processing occurs or what 'narrative response' entails. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'handle_user_message' or 'record_answers_and_choose_path', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'handle_user_message' and 'record_answers_and_choose_path', which likely involve similar user input processing, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions recording and choosing actions, which imply mutation or state changes, but fails to detail permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with potential write operations and no structured safety hints.
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 front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema may cover return values, reducing the need for that in the description, but key aspects like behavioral traits and parameter details are lacking, making it incomplete for safe and 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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'answers' and 'path_choice' without explaining their formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., what answers are recorded, what path_choice values mean). This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.
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's purpose as recording user answers and choosing a reincarnation path, which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb 'record' and 'choose' with the resources 'answers' and 'path', but lacks detail on what 'reincarnation path' means or how it relates to siblings like 'generate_path_introduction' or 'get_story_status', limiting 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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage in a story or reincarnation context but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'process_user_input' or 'handle_user_message', leaving the agent with minimal direction.
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, the description carries full burden. 'Reset the story completely' suggests a destructive mutation, but it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what 'completely' means (e.g., data deletion, state clearing). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which might help), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter meaning, or usage context, making it insufficient for effective agent invocation.
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 provides no information about the 'user_id' parameter, such as its purpose, format, or how it relates to resetting the story. This leaves the single required parameter undocumented.
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 'Reset the story completely' specifies the verb 'reset' and the resource 'story', but lacks specificity about what 'story' refers to or what 'completely' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_story_status' or 'start_story' by implying a destructive reset, but the purpose remains somewhat vague without context.
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 like 'start_story' or 'handle_user_message'. The description implies a reset action but does not specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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 states 'Get current story status and state', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if no story exists, or the format of the returned status/state. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic intent.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get current story status and state'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or how it fits with siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use despite the output schema.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter (user_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain what 'user_id' represents (e.g., a specific user identifier) or how it relates to retrieving story status. This doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 'Get current story status and state' clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('story status and state'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'reset_story' or 'start_story' in terms of scope or granularity, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
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 active story), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying status), or comparisons to siblings like 'reset_story' or 'record_answers_and_choose_path', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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