BlueSky MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Bluesky resources: followers, follows, liked posts, personal feed, user posts, profiles, post search, and profile search. No ambiguity exists as each tool name precisely indicates what it retrieves.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'bluesky_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case throughout. The naming is highly predictable, using verbs like 'get' and 'search' paired with specific nouns like 'followers', 'posts', or 'profiles'.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for social media interaction on Bluesky. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects of user data, feeds, and search functionality without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive read/search coverage for Bluesky's core features, including user relationships, content consumption, and discovery. A minor gap exists in write operations (e.g., posting, liking, following), but agents can effectively navigate the available surface for information retrieval tasks.
Average 2.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get recent posts' but fails to describe key traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This omission is significant for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and resource. It is front-loaded with essential information and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately concise for its purpose, though it could be more informative.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., post format, fields), behavioral aspects like pagination, and context for usage relative to siblings. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'limit' and 'cursor' with defaults and purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'recent' relates to these parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Get recent posts') and resource ('from a user'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'recent' (e.g., time frame, recency criteria) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bluesky_get_personal_feed' or 'bluesky_search_posts', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like retrieving a user's posts versus searching posts or accessing a personal feed, nor does it specify prerequisites such as user identification. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.
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 the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by cursor parameter but not explained), or what the search covers (e.g., text content, hashtags). This leaves significant gaps for a search 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand the core purpose immediately.
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?
For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed to adequately 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (query, limit, cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or cursor usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Search for posts on Bluesky' clearly states the action (search) and resource (posts), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like bluesky_search_profiles or bluesky_get_posts. It lacks specificity about what kind of search this performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bluesky_search_profiles (for profile search) or bluesky_get_posts (which might retrieve specific posts). The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
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. While 'Get a list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or the format of the returned list (e.g., usernames, IDs, profiles). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity of a social media API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key contextual elements like authentication needs, error handling, or the structure of returned data (e.g., list of profiles vs. usernames), which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in real-world scenarios.
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 documentation for both parameters (limit and cursor), including defaults and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Get a list') and resource ('accounts following the user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bluesky_get_follows' (which likely retrieves accounts the user follows), but the phrase 'following the user' provides enough context to distinguish it from other tools in the Bluesky context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bluesky_get_profile' (which might include follower counts) or 'bluesky_search_profiles' (which could find followers via search). It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required or if it works for any user.
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 the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, included fields). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what data fields are included for each account), error conditions, authentication requirements, or how pagination works in practice. For a social media API tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'cursor') well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a list is returned, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. 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 ('list of accounts the user follows'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bluesky_get_followers' beyond the obvious directional difference, missing an opportunity to clarify the specific relationship being queried.
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 'bluesky_get_followers' (for followers instead of follows) or 'bluesky_get_profile' (which might include follow data). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.
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 lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements (likely needed for user-specific data), rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure).
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 core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain authentication needs, rate limits, return format, or error handling. Given the complexity of fetching user-specific data from a social platform, more contextual information is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (limit and cursor). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('list of posts liked by the user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like bluesky_get_posts (general posts) and bluesky_get_personal_feed (feed content), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.
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 sibling tools like bluesky_get_posts or bluesky_search_posts, nor does it specify scenarios where retrieving liked posts is appropriate versus other post-fetching methods.
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 the action ('Get') but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' but not explained), or what 'personalized' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely requires user context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'personalized' means (e.g., based on follows, algorithms), authentication requirements, or return format. For a feed-fetching tool with user context, this leaves critical gaps.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('limit' and 'cursor') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high 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 ('your personalized Bluesky feed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'bluesky_get_posts' or 'bluesky_search_posts', which might also retrieve posts but with different scopes or filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for 'personalized' feed, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'bluesky_get_posts' or 'bluesky_search_posts'.
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. 'Search for Bluesky profiles' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond the cursor parameter in schema), error handling, or what the results include (e.g., profile details). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a search tool. Every word earns its place, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits), result format, and usage context. For a search tool with potential complexity in results and pagination, more detail is needed to help an agent invoke it correctly without relying solely on the schema.
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 query, limit, and cursor parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax, result ordering, or cursor usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.
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 'Search for Bluesky profiles' clearly states the action (search) and resource (Bluesky profiles). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bluesky_search_posts (which searches posts) and bluesky_get_profile (which retrieves a specific profile). However, it doesn't specify the scope or type of search (e.g., by username, display name, keywords), making it slightly less specific than ideal.
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 when to prefer bluesky_search_profiles over bluesky_get_profile (for specific profiles) or bluesky_search_posts (for content search), nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 the tool 'Get[s] a user's profile information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify how the user is identified (e.g., by handle, DID, or other means), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what specific information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but inadequate. It doesn't explain how the user is specified (e.g., via context or implicit means), what profile information is returned, or any behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to be 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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters to explain, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is sufficient given the empty parameter set.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a user's profile information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve profile data, such as 'bluesky_search_profiles', which prevents 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 'bluesky_search_profiles' or other sibling tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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.

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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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