AgenTest

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Android app testing: connection, device info, logs, preferences, UI tree, database, app reset, flow execution, screenshots, and network simulation. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the pattern 'agentest_' + descriptive verb phrase in snake_case (e.g., 'agentest_connect', 'agentest_get_logs'), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of Android UI testing, covering essential operations without being overly large or too sparse.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of test sessions: setup (connect, reset), interaction (run_flow with actions/assertions), diagnostics (logs, screenshots, device info, shared prefs, database queries), and conditioning (network simulation). No obvious gaps.
Average 4.1/5 across 10 of 10 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 is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it gets logs without disclosing any behavioral traits like whether logs are cleared, authentication needed, or performance impact. Lacks detail beyond basic read 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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines action and resource, second provides usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 optional params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Slightly incomplete on output format or interpretation, but sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States verb 'Get', resource 'app logs (logcat)', and purpose 'diagnose failures — API errors, crashes, exceptions'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like agentest_device_info and agentest_get_ui_tree.
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?
Provides intended use case 'diagnose failures' and examples, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios.
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 must disclose behaviors. It states the tool is a read operation and requires a debuggable build, but lacks details about error handling (e.g., file not found) or any side effects, leaving some 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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler, clearly stating the action, purpose, and a critical requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and a key prerequisite. However, it does not specify return value format or behavior in edge cases, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds contextual examples (e.g., '.xml' suffix) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 identifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'SharedPreferences XML file', with a stated purpose 'verify stored state'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'agentest_query_db' (database) and 'agentest_device_info' (device info), but could be more explicit.
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 mentions when to use it ('verify stored state') and a prerequisite ('Requires a debuggable build'), but does not indicate when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'agentest_get_logs' or 'agentest_query_db'.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Describes output format (compact text with refs) and optional verbose diagnostics, but does not disclose error scenarios or side effects beyond launching the app.
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?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then explains output format. No unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains the return format well. Covers parameters implicitly. Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for a connector tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so description adds minimal extra value. It mentions verbose:true for diagnostics, which is helpful but not critical.
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?
Clearly states it connects to an Android emulator/device and launches an app, returning the initial UI screen. Differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., agentest_get_ui_tree, agentest_run_flow) by being the first-step connection tool.
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?
Implied usage as the first step before other agentest tools. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context suggests it's the starting point.
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 provided. Description adds the debuggable build requirement and implies read-only intent ('verify DB state'), but does not clarify if arbitrary SQL (including mutations) is allowed, nor does it describe error handling or output format.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's action and scope. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and prerequisite. Minor omission: return format (rows) would be helpful but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate. Description adds minimal extra meaning (mentions Room and testing context) but does not significantly enhance 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 it runs a SQL query against an app SQLite database for verifying DB state after test actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other testing aspects like device info or logs.
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?
Provides explicit use case ('verify DB state after test actions') and a prerequisite ('Requires a debuggable build'). Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but sibling tools are sufficiently different.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format but omits potential side effects (e.g., screen flash) or permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides usage guidance. Well front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage condition. Could mention limitations like app foreground requirement.
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 has no parameters (coverage 100%), so the description adds no parameter info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantics are needed.
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 ('Capture a screenshot'), the output format ('base64-encoded PNG'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'agentest_get_ui_tree' by specifying when to use it ('when the accessibility tree is insufficient').
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?
Provides explicit condition for use ('when the accessibility tree is insufficient — custom canvas, images, visual layout issues'), implying when not to use. Could be enhanced by stating that it should be used sparingly or that it captures full screen.
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 must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and lists key fields. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description provides a list of returned fields (screen size, density, etc.), which is sufficient for understanding the output. It does not specify format or structure, but for a simple attribute list, this is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine as there are none. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not detract.
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 'Get device/emulator info' and lists specific attributes (screen size, density, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which all perform different functions like connecting, logging, or querying.
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 explicitly says 'Use to understand the test environment,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, the sibling list implies this is the sole tool for device information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains presets, custom speed/delay, and toggles for wifi and airplane mode. Does not mention side effects or persistence, but simulation behavior is well-covered.
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?
First sentence states purpose, then followed by clear bullet-like listings. Slightly verbose but well-organized and front-loaded. Every part adds value.
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?
No output schema, so description should hint at return value or side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure) or whether changes are persistent. Missing this context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining preset meanings, custom speed format ('up:down' kbps), and latency as 'min:max' ms, going beyond schema alone.
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?
Description clearly states 'Simulate network conditions on the emulator for testing offline/slow connections.' Verb and resource are specific, and sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.
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?
Purpose implies when to use (testing offline/slow connections). Provides presets and custom options but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Still clear and adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It explains that each call returns a fresh snapshot, refs can become stale with clear errors, and provides output formats. Could mention that it's read-only and has no side effects, but sufficient 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?
Well-structured with bullet points for options. First sentence could be tighter but is effective. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Awarding 4 due to minor verbosity in the introductory sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description explains return formats (compact text with @refs, full JSON tree). Covers error conditions (stale refs) and usage patterns. Lacks details on bounds/classNames in full format, but sufficient for agent to understand output.
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?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining defaults ('compact'), usage tips ('use full for debugging'), and context for options ('onlyInteractive drops plain text'). Descriptions enhance beyond schema alone.
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 fetches a fresh UI screen snapshot with compact text by default. It distinguishes from sibling tools like screenshot (visual) or device_info (metadata) by focusing on interactive element hierarchy and refs.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to call this tool (to get fresh refs) and how to use refs in selectors with error handling. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives, but usage context is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool stops on first failure, automatically waits after actions, and conditionally includes the UI tree in the response. It also explains the screenFingerprint/screenChanged mechanism. This is thorough but could additionally describe what happens to the app state upon failure (e.g., partial changes).
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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized lists of actions, assertions, and selectors. It is informative without being overly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though some lines (e.g., selector details) could be slightly tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple action types, selector options, response behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers most critical aspects: how to execute flows, behavior on failure, auto-wait, response structure (screenFingerprint/screenChanged), and selector syntax. It is nearly complete but could explicitly outline the full response shape for agent clarity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it lists all available actions and assertions, explains selector priority (ref fastest), and provides example syntax. This helps an agent understand how to construct the 'steps' array beyond what the schema's formal descriptions offer.
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 'Execute a batch of UI actions and assertions. Stops on first failure.' This specific verb+resource combination unambiguously communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentest_get_ui_tree (which only retrieves the tree) and agentest_screenshot (which captures an image).
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 provides clear context for usage: it explains how to target elements using refs from the last tree snapshot versus traditional selectors, advises against adding 'wait' or 'wait_for_stable' steps due to auto-waiting, and describes when to reuse refs based on the screenChanged flag. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for single actions or non-UI tasks) relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive action (force-stop and relaunch) and return value. With no annotations, this level of detail is adequate, though it could mention side effects like lost app state.
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 front-loading action, return, and usage. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: action, return, and usage are all covered.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, and description adds default behavior for packageName ('Defaults to the last connected app'), providing extra value.
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?
Description clearly states it force-stops and relaunches the app, returning a fresh compact tree. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like agentest_get_ui_tree.
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?
Explicitly advises use between test cases for clean state, providing clear context. No explicit alternatives given, but the usage is well-scoped.
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:

[![agenTest MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arjun-vegeta/agenTest/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arjun-vegeta/agenTest)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agenTest MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arjun-vegeta/agenTest/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arjun-vegeta/agenTest)

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/arjun-vegeta/agenTest'

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