mcp-socket

by cinit

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation (TCP connect/send/recv/close, UDP open/send/recv, DNS resolution, socket listing, polling). No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., tcp_connect, resolve_dns, close_socket). Adheres to a predictable naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is appropriate for a socket utility server. It covers TCP and UDP client operations without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers essential TCP/UDP client operations and DNS resolution. Missing server-side features (TCP listen, UDP bind) and advanced options, but the scope is clearly client-oriented.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 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?
Discloses that address must be an IP literal and encoding options, but lacks details on blocking behavior, error handling, datagram size limits, or socket prerequisites. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 superfluous content. Efficiently presents core 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 5 required params, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is too minimal. Lacks context on socket lifecycle, return value, and common usage patterns.
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?
Only addresses address, port, and encoding; does not explain socket_id (source socket) or data (payload). Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but only covers 3 of 5 parameters partially.
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?
Clearly states the action 'send a UDP datagram' to address:port, distinguishing it from TCP siblings via protocol mention. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other UDP tools like udp_open or udp_recv.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. References tcp_send for encoding but does not clarify when UDP is appropriate over TCP or other alternatives.
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 burden. It explains the two encoding modes but lacks other behavioral details such as error handling, blocking behavior, data size limits, or prerequisites like a connected socket.
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 efficient front-loading: purpose first, then encoding options. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has 3 required params and an output schema not described. For a send operation, missing contextual details like error behavior, idempotency, or max data size limit completeness. Output schema existence helps but not explained.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'encoding' by explaining utf8 and base64 modes, but 'data' and 'socket_id' lack additional context beyond their names.
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 'Send bytes over a connected TCP socket,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like tcp_recv, udp_send, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides encoding options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like udp_send or tcp_recv. Usage context is implied but not clarified.
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 describes the basic behavior (check readable, optional wait) but lacks details on side effects, return format, or what happens on timeout. Adequate for a simple poll 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?
Extremely concise with two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavior, but could mention edge cases like closed sockets or timeouts. Mostly complete.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions timeout_seconds > 0 but does not explain socket_id or provide details on parameter usage beyond the schema titles. Adds some value but incomplete.
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 checks for readable data and explains the timeout behavior. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tcp_recv/udp_recv by suggesting those for receiving.
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 guidance by suggesting that most clients can use tcp_recv/udp_recv instead, implying socket_poll is for cases when you want to check without receiving. It could be more explicit about when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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 discloses that it creates a socket and connects, and returns a socket_id. However, it does not describe behavior on connection failure, timeout handling, or error states, which are important for a network 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes key usage guidance and return value. Every sentence is essential and there is no extraneous information.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main usage successfully but lacks details on error scenarios, timeout behavior, and lifecycle of the returned socket_id. It is adequate for simple cases but incomplete for robust understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds value for the 'address' parameter by requiring literal IPs, but does not explain 'port' or 'timeout_seconds' beyond their existence. The timeout_seconds parameter is mentioned but its semantics (connection timeout, units) are not clarified.
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 creates a TCP socket and connects to an IP:port. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_dns by requiring literal addresses and providing a prerequisite step.
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?
The description explicitly states that address must be an IPv4 or IPv6 literal, and to call resolve_dns for hostnames first. This guides when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also mentions the return value for subsequent operations.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states creation and return, without mentioning permissions, side effects, errors, or lifecycle implications (e.g., need to close socket).
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 core action. Every sentence adds value: creation, usage hint, and return value. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers creation and usage hints adequately. It could mention cleanup via close_socket, but overall it is largely complete for a creation tool.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, which is acceptable. Baseline score 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'unbound outbound UDP socket', distinguishing it from TCP and other socket operations. It also mentions the return value (socket_id), providing complete purpose clarity.
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 workflow guidance by mentioning udp_send and udp_recv for subsequent operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools context makes differentiation clear.
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, the description carries full burden. It details blocking/non-blocking behavior via timeout_seconds and describes the packet structure (source address/port, length, base64 data, optional text). However, it omits edge cases like empty results, errors, or buffer limitations.
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-loads the primary action, and avoids redundant information. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
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 (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers core usage and packet details. It lacks some context like error handling or the need to previously open a socket via udp_open, but is sufficient for correct invocation with the output schema filling return structure.
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 0%, so description should explain parameters. It adds meaning for max_packets ('up to max_packets') and timeout_seconds (blocking vs non-blocking), but does not explain socket_id or clarify default behaviors beyond the schema's defaults.
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's action: 'Receive one or more UDP datagrams'. It specifies the resource (UDP datagrams) and scope (up to max_packets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcp_recv which handles TCP, providing clear differentiation.
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 receiving UDP datagrams and explains timeout behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., socket_poll, tcp_recv). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
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; description discloses timeout behavior, return format (base64 and optional text), and EOF/timeout detection (bytes_received=0 with empty data).
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with main action, no redundant 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?
Covers key behaviors for a simple recv tool; output schema likely documents return values, so description is adequate.
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 0%; description explains timeout_seconds default and behavior but does not explain max_bytes or add details for socket_id 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?
Description clearly states 'Receive bytes from a TCP socket' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like tcp_send and udp_recv.
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?
Explains timeout behavior (non-blocking vs blocking) and return format, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
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 must carry full burden. It implies read-only behavior by listing metadata, but does not explicitly state that the tool is safe, non-destructive, or has no side effects. Would benefit from such a statement.
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 redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output contents, second explains parameter usage. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 an output schema exists, the description's mention of metadata fields (state, endpoints, idle time, counters) provides useful context. It is complete for a simple list tool, though could note any special conditions like requiring administrative privileges.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates. It explains the parameter 'socket_id' can be a string, list of strings, or null, and that omitting returns all sockets. This adds critical meaning 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?
Description clearly states 'List open sockets and their metadata', specifying the verb (list) and resource (sockets) with concrete metadata fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about operations (close, poll, connect) rather than inspection.
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 explains how to use the parameter: pass a string, list, or omit for all. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria.
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 discloses that address ordering follows the OS resolver, but does not mention behavior on resolution failure or timeouts.
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: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. 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?
Tool is simple (1 param, no nested objects) and output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Description covers purpose and usage adequately, but could mention error handling.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description states it resolves a hostname, matching the schema field, but adds no format or constraints (e.g., FQDN requirement).
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 tool resolves a hostname into IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcp_connect that require IP literals.
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 ('before tcp_connect/udp_send') and why (those tools require IP literals), providing clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: graceful FIN shutdown vs abortive close (TCP RST) and that reset is ignored for UDP. It also mentions removal from the registry, ensuring transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states the purpose, second explains parameter variations. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a simple close operation with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter nuances fully. No additional context is needed.
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% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the reset parameter's behavior (TCP vs UDP) and implicitly defines socket_id's role. This compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states 'Close a socket and remove it from the registry,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tcp_connect or udp_send, which have 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 explains the reset parameter's effect for TCP versus UDP, providing context for when to use different settings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or exclusions.
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-socket MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cinit/mcp-socket/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cinit/mcp-socket)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-socket MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cinit/mcp-socket/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cinit/mcp-socket)

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/cinit/mcp-socket'

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