Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-registry

mcp-registry

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_mcp_server

Retrieve detailed information about a specific MCP server by name. Get configuration and version details from the MCP Registry.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific MCP server by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_mcp_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the server to retrieve.
registry_urlNoBase URL of the MCP Registry API (default: production).https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description only says 'get detailed information,' which is minimally transparent. It doesn't disclose error handling, idempotency, or any restrictions, but the output schema covers return values.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Efficiently communicates the core action and object.

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 simple retrieval nature, the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It correctly identifies the primary parameter (name) and the tool's scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific MCP server by name, directly distinguishing it from siblings like list, search, and get_versions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The use case is implied by its purpose (retrieve a single server), but no 'when not to use' or explicit mentions of sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools