mcp-plesk-dev-docs

by barateza

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: v0.7.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Search, file retrieval, reference resolution, indexing operations, system health, and profile management are all separate concerns with no overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_file_content, trigger_index_sync), but 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' includes the server name, and 'daemon_health' is noun_noun. These minor deviations from the dominant pattern prevent a perfect score.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a documentation server that includes indexing, search, and system health. Each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: indexing (refresh, trigger, check), search, retrieval, reference resolution, and system management. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a tool to list documentation sections or metadata, but these are not critical.
Average 3.4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 26 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?
With no annotations present, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'search' without explaining what the search returns (e.g., list of documents, snippets), whether it supports pagination, or any limitations. This is minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but could include more detail without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, which is good.
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 only two parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate but fails to mention return format or any additional details that would fully prepare an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 schema has two parameters, but only 'category' includes a description. The description does not explain the 'query' parameter beyond its type, nor does it clarify how the optional 'category' filter works. Overall, little value added 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 states the verb 'search' and the resource 'unified Plesk documentation', making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to have a similar purpose.
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, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations. The description is a single sentence with no usage hints.
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 the background job trigger and job_id return, but fails to explain mutation, destructiveness, prerequisites, or side effects (e.g., what 'reset_db' does). The description is insufficient for safe use.
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 only two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the action and return value, achieving maximum 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 tool triggers a background job, it lacks details on idempotency, side effects, and prerequisites. Parameters are unexplained. Despite an output schema existing, the description is incomplete for safe and correct agent invocation.
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 or explain any parameters. The 'reset_db' parameter especially needs clarification (e.g., does it reset the index?). The description adds no value over the bare 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 'trigger' and resource 'background indexing job for Plesk documentation', and mentions the return value. It distinguishes from the sibling 'check_sync_status' but not from other potential alternatives like 'refresh_knowledge'.
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 indicates when to use the tool (to trigger indexing) and what to do with the result (use with check_sync_status). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, omitting any details about required permissions, idempotency, polling behavior, or possible status values. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the core 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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about how to obtain the job_id or what typical statuses might be, leaving some gaps in 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?
The input schema has one parameter (job_id) with 0% textual coverage, and the description does not mention or clarify it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.
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 'Check the status of a background indexing job' clearly states the action (checking status) and the target (background indexing job), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trigger_index_sync which perform actions rather than checks.
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 trigger_index_sync or refresh_knowledge. The agent is left to infer usage context without explicit hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing traits like possible statuses, side effects, or authentication needs. It only states 'readiness status' without elaborating on what that entails or how the tool behaves.
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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the verb. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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?
Even though the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description omits essential context: what 'daemon-centric' means, possible statuses, or how the output should be interpreted. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, so a baseline of 4 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('readiness status'), with a specific qualifier ('daemon-centric'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'requantize_knowledge' or 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' by indicating a health-check purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'check_sync_status' or 'trigger_index_sync'). The description provides no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
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 for behavioral transparency. It only mentions rebuilding an index but does not disclose side effects, resource usage, idempotency, or concurrency implications. This is minimal transparency for a potentially impactful 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the rebuild is safe to run concurrently, if it requires a locked state, or typical duration. For a simple rebuild action, it is acceptable but not thorough.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4.
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 'Rebuild' and the resource 'TurboQuant index from stored vectors', making the action specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like refresh_knowledge or trigger_index_sync, which might have similar purposes.
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, nor are there any prerequisites or contextual usage hints. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
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 full burden. It mentions blocking behavior and returns a report, but lacks disclosure about side effects of reset_db, data deletion, or permissions. Leaves some behavioral 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous information.
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?
While output schema likely covers return values, the tool has no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage. Description fails to explain parameters or behavioral details like reset_db effects. Incomplete for confident 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% and the description does not explain any parameters (category, reset_db). The agent would have to infer from schema alone, which is insufficient.
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 indexes Plesk documentation into LanceDB, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling trigger_index_sync by noting the blocking behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (blocking refresh) and when not (for very large sets, use trigger_index_sync instead). Provides clear context for choosing between tools.
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 full burden. It states the tool finds references, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, partial match behavior, or any side effects. It is adequate but not detailed.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage example. No extraneous information; every sentence is valuable.
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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could be improved by referencing the output format, but is largely complete for the tool's scope.
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 50% (only category has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining 'query' as a 'symbol or topic' and 'category' as 'Plesk documentation categories', but lacks format details or constraints beyond the schema.
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 finds files referencing a specific symbol or topic, with an explicit verb 'Find' and resource 'other files'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' by focusing on references specifically, not general 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 mentions usefulness for finding usage examples, implying when to use, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools. Sibling tools suggest alternatives, but no comparison is made.
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 'preload' without detailing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.
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 front-loads the key purpose and constraint ('without running indexing'). No unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it could mention the output or behavior on repeated calls for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 is warranted as the schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'preload' and the resource 'active profile models and table', and explicitly specifies it does so 'without running indexing', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like trigger_index_sync.
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 preloading without indexing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
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 describes a read operation ('Retrieve') with no side effects mentioned. While the behavior is clear for a simple retrieval, it could disclose more, such as whether the operation is read-only or any potential performance implications.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage context.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and typical use case (from search result). However, it does not mention any constraints like file size limits or error conditions, but given the simple nature, it is mostly 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 50% (only 'category' described). The description does not elaborate on the 'filename' parameter, which lacks a schema description, missing an opportunity to clarify its format or origin. The description only mentions 'filename from a search result' implicitly, not directly explaining the parameter.
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 'Retrieve the full content of a specific documentation file,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' by explicitly stating the use case of retrieving full content when a filename is known from a search result.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you have a filename from a search result and need more context than what was provided in the search snippets.' This tells when to use it and implies it builds on the search tool, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only behavior ('list', 'show') but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or destructive potential. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 containing two clear actions. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. It is highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It explains what the tool does (list profiles, show active) without needing to detail return values, as that is handled by the output schema.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to the guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not add parameter info (none needed), so this score 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?
The description 'List built-in model profiles and show the active profile' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'model profiles', with an additional action 'show active'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'requantize_knowledge' or 'warmup_server', which have entirely different purposes.
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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no contextual advice for the agent's decision-making.
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:

[![mcp-plesk-dev-docs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barateza/mcp-plesk-dev-docs/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barateza/mcp-plesk-dev-docs)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-plesk-dev-docs MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barateza/mcp-plesk-dev-docs/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/barateza/mcp-plesk-dev-docs)

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/barateza/mcp-plesk-dev-docs'

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