Conan MCP Server

Official

by conan-io

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: project creation, dependency installation, package search, profile listing, profile details, license extraction, and security scanning. There is no functional overlap; the descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case (e.g., create_conan_project, list_conan_packages). The pattern is uniformly applied across all seven tools.
Tool Count5/5
With seven tools, the server covers the essential workflows for Conan package management without being excessive or insufficient. The scope is well-defined and each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers project creation, dependency installation, package search, profile management, license information, and security auditing. Missing are build/export operations, but the core lifecycle is addressed, and the gaps are minor.
Average 4.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on November 12, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the search scope (remotes, cache), the effect of parameters like 'search_in_cache' (should be consistent), and the return type (dictionary). However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects (though likely none), authentication needs, or behavior on errors (e.g., remote unavailable), leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections (purpose, use cases, args, returns, examples) but is verbose, especially in listing every possible filter setting/option value and repeating examples at the end. It could be more concise without losing clarity, making it less ideal for quick scanning.
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 high parameter count (11), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides rich parameter documentation and a vague but acceptable return description ('Dictionary containing available packages and their metadata'). The examples cover several parameter combinations, ensuring the agent can effectively use the tool. Minor gaps: return structure is unspecified.
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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds substantial value beyond the schema: it explains wildcard syntax for 'name', Conan2 version range syntax for 'version', examples for filter_settings and filter_options, and the nuanced behavior of 'remote' and 'search_in_cache'. This goes well beyond simply restating schema 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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Search for Conan packages across remotes with fine-grained filtering.' It lists specific use cases (check versions, find latest, search by name/version/filter) and provides examples, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_conan_packages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool through a bulleted list of use cases ('Check available versions', 'Find the latest version', etc.) and provides numerous examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, which would be helpful given the sibling tools exist for installation or scanning.
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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool is for inspection and returns a list of profile names, implying no destructive actions. It could explicitly state it is read-only, but given the simplicity, it is adequately transparent.
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 short but slightly repetitive (first sentence restates the title-like phrase, then repeats the purpose). The format is clear with a 'Returns:' section, but it could be more concise by merging the first two sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides the essential information: what it does and what it returns. For a simple list operation, it is sufficiently 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?
There are no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter insight because none exist, which 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 tool lists Conan profiles. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('List Conan profiles') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_conan_profile' by indicating it returns all available profiles or 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?
The description explicitly says to use this tool to see which profiles are available for selection or inspection, giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'get_conan_profile'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that generated code contains placeholder examples requiring user review, and the force parameter controls overwriting. It also specifies where the project is created (work_dir). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, a note section, and clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is somewhat verbose but includes necessary details for template options and examples, earning its sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description documents the return dictionary. It covers all 7 parameters with detailed explanations, behavioral notes, and usage context. Minor omission: does not mention prerequisites like having Conan installed, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by categorizing template types (libraries vs executables) and providing default choices. It also gives common examples for tool_requires, enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new Conan project with specified dependencies. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on project creation, while siblings like install_conan_packages or list_conan_packages handle other lifecycle tasks.
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 explains it is useful for setting up new projects with common libraries and includes a note about placeholder examples requiring user updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings for specific scenarios.
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 the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (dictionary with host/build configs) and that it retrieves a profile. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., profile not found) or side effects, but these are minor for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a lead sentence, use-case list, parameter doc, and return explanation. It is slightly verbose (the bullet list of triggers could be condensed) but still earns its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return dictionary structure. It also provides context on when and why to use the tool. The single optional parameter is well-documented, and the tool's role as a prerequisite is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is nearly identical to the one in the main description ('Optional profile name...'). The description adds no significant additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Conan profile configuration,' a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_conan_profiles by explaining it retrieves a specific profile (or default) and is a prerequisite for platform-specific operations.
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 lists multiple trigger scenarios (platform, compiler, architecture, build configs, listing packages, environment context) and positions it as a prerequisite step. This provides clear guidance on when to use versus alternatives.
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 the dependency graph computation, remote iteration, binary matching, error conditions, and the use of build_missing. It also explains status fields. Lacks explicit mention of side effects on cache but is thorough overall.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for behavior, examples, arguments, and returns. It is slightly lengthy but every section adds value. The purpose is front-loaded, and the formatting aids readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all needed aspects: behavior, parameter details, examples, return format with status codes, and edge cases like build_missing and search_in_cache. An agent can reliably select and invoke this 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying path is relative to work_dir, work_dir is always required, and provides detailed examples and patterns for settings_host and options_host, going beyond the 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 it installs Conan package dependencies from a recipe file (conanfile.py or conanfile.txt), using the 'conan install' command. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conan_packages or scan_conan_dependencies.
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 explains when to use the tool (installing dependencies from a recipe) and provides context on behavior like searching remotes and handling missing binaries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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 discloses that only host context packages are analyzed, that licenses are always returned as a list, and that the tool uses 'conan graph info'. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only query tool, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with headings, examples, and a parameter list. While slightly verbose in places (e.g., repeating 'collect license information'), the information density is high and every sentence contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters with mutual exclusivity), the description is comprehensive: it explains usage, provides examples, and details the return value structure. The output schema is described textually, fulfilling completeness for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of 'path' and 'requires'), clarifying relative path resolution, and providing concrete examples. The description goes well beyond the schema's attribute 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 the tool collects license information for Conan dependencies, specifies the use of 'conan graph info', and distinguishes by noting only host context packages are analyzed. It provides specific use cases like 'Search for licenses of the project' and 'Extract license information', leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this tool when you need to: ...') and provides multiple examples. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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?
Describes external API call to audit.conan.io, requires authentication, and has a 100-call-per-day limit. Missing explicit statement that the tool is read-only (non-destructive), but the scanning action implies it. Good disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a prominent warning, then authentication info, then usage guidance and parameter details. Slightly verbose but every part adds context. Front-loading the warning is effective. Could trim some redundancy (e.g., parameter descriptions partly duplicate schema) but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, usage, parameters, external dependencies, rate limits, and return type (dictionary). Lacks specifics about the dictionary contents and error handling. For a tool with no output schema, this is fairly complete but not exhaustive.
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?
Although schema already describes parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant value: explains mutual exclusivity of path and reference, how path resolves relative to work_dir, and gives example for reference. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 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?
Clearly states the tool audits Conan projects or packages for vulnerabilities using audit.conan.io. Distinguishes two modes (path vs reference) and explains what each does. Siblings are unrelated (create, install, list, etc.), so the tool stands out as the scanning tool.
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 tells when to use path vs reference, and warns not to use both simultaneously. Also includes authentication requirement and API rate limit, guiding the agent on constraints. This is exemplary usage guidance.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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