DigitalOcean MCP Server

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 clear distinctions, such as list_endpoints vs. search_endpoints, but there is significant overlap and ambiguity. For example, call_digitalocean_api and get_endpoint_details both relate to endpoint interactions, and configure_digitalocean_api is a setup tool that might be confused with the others in practice. The descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries between endpoint-related tools are not sharply defined.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern, such as list_endpoints, get_endpoint_details, and search_endpoints. However, there are minor deviations like call_digitalocean_api (which uses 'call' instead of a more specific verb) and configure_digitalocean_api (which is more of a setup action). Overall, the naming is readable and predictable with only slight inconsistencies.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on DigitalOcean API interactions. It covers configuration, listing, searching, and calling endpoints, which aligns well with the apparent scope. However, it might be slightly thin if more granular operations (e.g., specific resource management) are expected, but it's well-scoped for its purpose.
Completeness3/5
The tool set provides basic coverage for exploring and using DigitalOcean APIs, including configuration, listing, searching, and calling endpoints. However, there are notable gaps: it lacks direct CRUD operations for DigitalOcean resources (e.g., droplets, volumes, databases), which are core to the domain. This makes the surface incomplete for full agent workflows, as users might need to rely heavily on generic API calls instead of dedicated tools.
Average 3/5 across 6 of 6 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'call' implies an action, but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. For a general API-calling tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undefined.
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 directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a general-purpose tool and front-loaded with the core action, 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 the tool's complexity (making API calls with dynamic parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. Siblings suggest this is part of a broader API management suite, but the description doesn't integrate that 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'operationId' and 'parameters', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain how to use 'operationId' (e.g., referencing endpoints from 'list_endpoints') or what 'parameters' might include. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate documentation.
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 'Call a DigitalOcean API endpoint' states the action (call) and target (DigitalOcean API endpoint), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'call' entails (e.g., making HTTP requests, executing operations) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_endpoint_details' or 'list_endpoints', which might involve similar API interactions. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing configuration via 'configure_digitalocean_api'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_endpoints' for browsing or 'search_endpoints' for filtering. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned information. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to handle errors, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'operationId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond implying it identifies a 'specific endpoint', which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific endpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints' beyond the 'specific' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints'. It mentions 'specific endpoint' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing an operation ID from another source, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—no information on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'list all' means in practice (e.g., does it return a complete list or require pagination?). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness for a simple listing tool.
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 simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like how results are returned (e.g., paginated vs. all at once), error cases, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more contextual information would be helpful for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'tag') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all available DigitalOcean API endpoints'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details', but the scope ('all available') provides some implicit distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal 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 only states the search action without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or pagination behavior. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero annotation coverage, as it leaves critical operational details unspecified.
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, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, result handling, or differentiation from siblings, which are essential for effective tool use. This gap is significant for a search tool with multiple related siblings.
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%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'query') fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or result filtering details, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('DigitalOcean API endpoints'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details,' which likely have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.
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 such as 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details.' It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
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 that credentials 'can be auto-configured,' which hints at a setup or initialization behavior, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this action is idempotent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it persists credentials globally. For a configuration tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., stores credentials, validates them, returns success/failure), and it doesn't explain the outcome or any potential side effects. For such a tool, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('baseUrl' and 'token') with their types, defaults, and requirements. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure DigitalOcean API credentials.' It specifies the verb ('configure') and resource ('DigitalOcean API credentials'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'call_digitalocean_api' or 'list_endpoints,' which might also involve API interactions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning auto-configuration from an environment variable, which implies when this tool might be used (e.g., for initial setup). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manually setting credentials elsewhere or using other sibling tools. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without any behavioral context. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results come in, if there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics.
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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's perfectly sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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 provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'endpoint tags' are, how they relate to endpoints, and what the output format looks like. The absence of annotations means more behavioral context should be provided.
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 there's no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is sufficient given the empty input 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 the verb ('List') and resource ('endpoint tags'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_endpoints' or explain what 'endpoint tags' are versus 'endpoints' themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or specific use cases for retrieving tags rather than endpoints.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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