claude.design-mcp

by coin-seeker

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a unique action (create, delete, edit, get, iterate, list, login, preview, pull, status) targeting distinct operations on projects or files, with no overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a uniform 'design_<verb>' pattern, using snake_case throughout, making naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for a design-related server, covering essential operations from login to CRUD to preview and status without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflows (login, list, create, read, update, delete, preview, pull), but lacks explicit support for file deletion or project metadata updates, which are minor gaps.
Average 2.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 56 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'submit a follow-up prompt' but does not mention whether the tool modifies project state, requires authentication, or what the response contains (e.g., model reply).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks critical details about parameters, preconditions, and effects, making it too minimal to be effective.
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?
With 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain expected input format, project lifecycle, or outcome of the submission, leaving significant gaps.
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 adds no meaning to parameters. Neither 'projectId' nor 'prompt' are explained beyond their types, leaving the agent without guidance on valid values or formats.
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 'submit' and the resource 'follow-up prompt to an existing Claude Design project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like design_create (create new) and design_edit (modify project settings) by emphasizing the iterative 'follow-up' nature.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_edit or design_create. It does not clarify prerequisites like the need for an existing project or that the project must have an active conversation.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions creating a project and submitting a prompt but does not clarify side effects, permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a creation tool.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide adequate information for the agent to use the tool correctly. Ideally, it should include more context without being verbose.
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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the nature of the 'composer' reference. An agent would likely need to infer or guess many details.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description only implicitly covers the 'prompt' parameter. The 'name' parameter is not explained at all. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names in 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 action 'Create a Claude Design project' and distinguishes from siblings like design_edit, design_delete. It specifies submitting the initial prompt, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_edit or design_iterate. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
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?
The word 'Delete' implies a destructive action, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions needed, side effects, or confirmation steps. With no annotations provided, the description fails to add transparency beyond the action itself.
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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified given the lack of details in other dimensions; brevity here comes at the cost of completeness.
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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect on the project, any prerequisites, or what happens after deletion. Critical context is missing.
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 the 'projectId' parameter beyond its name and type. There is no indication of what values are valid or how to obtain the ID. The description adds no 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'Claude Design project', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other actions like create, edit, get, etc.
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 vs alternatives. Among 9 siblings, there is no context on prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or when other tools like design_edit or design_status might be relevant.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that edits are applied, but fails to mention whether edits are atomic, what happens on failure, permissions required, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content). The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
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 concise sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse at the expense of necessary details.
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, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate for a mutation tool. It does not provide enough context to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the format of edits and expected behavior.
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 input schema has 3 parameters (path, edits, projectId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what each parameter represents or the expected format (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'edits' array). The phrase 'direct string edits' gives a vague hint but is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 ('apply direct string edits') and the target resource ('one Claude Design project file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a direct edit operation, which contrasts with create, delete, get, list, and other operations. However, the term 'string edits' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more specific.
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 design_create (for creating files) or design_get (for reading). There are no criteria for when edits are appropriate or any mention of prerequisites or constraints.
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 disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation but does not mention that it is non-destructive, any authentication requirements, or whether it modifies state. The term 'self-contained HTML' is not explained.
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, clear sentence with no verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured with additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters like width, height, or projectId affect the output, nor what a 'full-page PNG screenshot' entails.
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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not mention any parameters or their purpose, failing to add value 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's function: rendering HTML to a PNG screenshot for visual review. It uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('project's self-contained HTML'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations.
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 such as design_get or design_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
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 action but not behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it overwrites local files, authentication requirements, or error handling. Without this, an agent cannot predict side effects.
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 sentence with no fluff, clearly stating the core functionality. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.
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 has 4 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should include details on default behavior, output format, error conditions, and parameter interactions to enable proper invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains projectId and name as identifiers, but does not describe the 'dir' parameter (output directory) or 'zip' parameter (whether to create a zip file). This leaves agent uncertain about required or optional parameters.
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 ('Pull') and the resource ('Claude Design project'), and specifies two methods for identifying the project (projectId or exact name). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like design_get, which might also retrieve project data.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., design_get, design_list). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention error behavior, access requirements, or other side effects.
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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too concise for a tool with no other documentation, sacrificing necessary detail 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?
Considering the large sibling set, no output schema, and lack of parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It leaves ambiguity about file types, project structure, and return format.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not add any parameter-level detail. While 'path' and 'projectId' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to provide format, constraints, or relationship context.
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 (read), the resource (one file), and the context (from a Claude Design project). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like design_list or design_create.
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 on prerequisites or when not to use it. The description is purely functional.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. Only states 'summarize' without disclosing read-only nature, authentication needs, or output format. Does not indicate whether the tool has side effects.
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?
Single sentence is highly concise with no extraneous words. However, it may be overly brief; a bit more structure could improve clarity without sacrificing 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 complexity of summarizing project data, chat counts, and last message roles, and the lack of output schema or additional annotations, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding what is returned and how to interpret results.
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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter projectId. The description mentions 'project data' but does not explain what projectId represents or how it should be used. Fails to add 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Summarize' and identifies distinct resource aspects: 'project data, chat count, and last message role'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like design_get (which likely returns full design details) or design_list (which lists multiple designs).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_get or design_list. Lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'logged-in web account' implying authentication, but no details on read-only nature, pagination, or output format. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Single sentence, clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, description is minimal. Lacks details on what 'projects' includes (e.g., names, IDs) and no mention of read-only nature. Acceptable but could be improved.
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?
No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter info, but none 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 states 'List Claude Design projects from the logged-in web account.' Clear verb 'list' and resource 'Claude Design projects', distinguishing from siblings like design_get (single project) and design_create.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like design_get or search. Does not mention when to avoid or prerequisites, though simple tool makes it obvious.
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?
The description discloses that it opens a browser (Chrome) and reports an account, which is a significant behavioral trait not captured in any structured fields. However, it omits details like whether this requires a desktop environment, side effects on existing sessions, or what happens if Chrome is not installed. With no annotations, the description partially fills the transparency gap.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Open Chrome...') and completes with the secondary action ('report...'). Every word is necessary and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description communicates the core function but lacks details on the format of the reported account (e.g., string, JSON), potential user interaction required, or failure modes. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.
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 input schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description meets that without superfluous information.
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 opens Chrome for a specific login page (claude.ai/design) and reports the active account. It uses strong verbs 'Open' and 'report', and the resource is explicitly a login operation, which distinctly separates it from sibling tools focused on design CRUD.
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 design_get or design_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering (e.g., must be called before design operations), or when not to use it.
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:

[![claude.design-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coin-seeker/claude.design-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coin-seeker/claude.design-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![claude.design-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coin-seeker/claude.design-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/coin-seeker/claude.design-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/coin-seeker/claude.design-mcp'

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