ngmcp

by davep

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: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching by body vs line, reading raw vs parsed, listing entries vs files vs menus, and following links. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but they employ different verb patterns: list_, get_, read_, search_ and follow_. While each group is consistent internally, the overall pattern is not uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for exploring Norton Guide databases. It covers all necessary operations (listing, reading, searching, linking, metadata) without being excessive.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers all expected interactions with a read-only Norton Guide: browsing by lists and menus, full-text search, reading entries (both plain and raw), following links, and retrieving guide metadata. No obvious gaps.
Average 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 3.0.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning data and raises FileNotFoundError, which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose other behaviors like caching or resource usage.
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 well-structured with a summary, detailed return format, parameter doc, and exception list. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 existence of an output schema, the description explains the return format thoroughly. It covers the parameter, return structure, and exceptions. Missing potential examples or notes about performance, but sufficient for a simple 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 description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing a clear description of the 'path' parameter as 'Absolute path to the .ng file', adding meaning beyond the schema type. It is specific and helpful.
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 returns the menu structure of a Norton Guide database file, using specific verbs and a specific resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on searching, navigation, or reading entries.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_entries or get_guide_info. No context on when not to use it or prerequisites.
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 discloses that the search is performed on plain text with markup stripped, returns all entries with matching lines, and raises FileNotFoundError for missing paths. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but that is implied. Additional behavioral details like potential performance impact or handling of large files are absent, but the core behavior is well-covered.
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 Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, each section adds value and there is no unnecessary repetition. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.
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 (though not detailed here), the description adequately covers the return format and error conditions. It explains all parameters and the behavior of the search. It does not guide the user on when to choose this tool over siblings, but that is a minor gap. For a tool with moderate complexity, the description is complete.
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?
The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, so the description provides all parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter: 'path' as absolute path to .ng file, 'query' as text string to search for, and 'case_sensitive' with default False and boolean type. This adds significant 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 tool searches all entries in a Norton Guide for lines matching a query string. It specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'entries in a Norton Guide', and the scope 'all entries'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'body_search_guide' (likely searches within bodies) and 'list_entries' (lists entries without search).
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 what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'body_search_guide' or 'read_entry'. The context from sibling tools implies different purposes, but no guidance is provided on when this search is preferred. The description lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions.
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 the full burden. It discloses search behavior (case sensitivity, joining lines with a space), return structure (offset, type, lines as list of strings), and raised exception (FileNotFoundError). It also mentions the tool returns entire entry content, which is a behavioral trait. No contradictory or missing critical information for a read-only search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses bold formatting for emphasis. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the comparison to line_search_guide could be slightly more condensed. Overall, it earns its place.
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 moderate complexity, the description is complete: it explains the search scope, return format, and error conditions. An output schema exists that details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. It covers all relevant aspects for an AI agent to correctly invoke the 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?
Input schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: path as 'Absolute path to the .ng file', query as 'The text string to search for', and case_sensitive with its default value and behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
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 purpose: searching all entries in a Norton Guide for a query string anywhere in the body. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool line_search_guide by contrasting the return type (entire entry vs. matching lines) and search scope (whole body vs. lines). The verb 'search' and resource 'entries in a Norton Guide' are specific.
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 clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. line_search_guide: 'This is similar to line_search_guide but returns the entire entry content... rather than just the matching lines.' It implies that if you need only matching lines, use line_search_guide. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for other siblings.
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 full burden. It honestly describes the return value structure and behavior (reads file, returns lines). It lacks details on permissions, performance, or side effects, but for a read-only tool, the transparency is sufficient.
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 concise (~150 words) with a clear structure: main sentence, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative with no waste; it is well-organized and front-loaded.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description provides complete context: parameter meaning, return structure in detail, and the offset's origin. It is fully adequate for the agent to use 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?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining 'path' as absolute path to .ng file and 'offset' as byte offset from list_entries/list_menus, adding crucial 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 'Return' and the resource 'raw source lines of the entry at a given offset,' making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like 'read_entry' which likely returns structured data, and 'list_entries' which provides offsets.
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 when to use this tool (when raw source lines are needed given an offset), but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'read_entry' or 'body_search_guide'. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
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?
Details return dictionary structure including keys, types, and FileNotFoundError. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; could explicitly state read-only nature but implication is clear.
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?
Structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections, but somewhat verbose with full Python docstring. Information is front-loaded and well-organized, though could be more terse.
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?
Comprehensive: covers single parameter, detailed return values with types, and error handling. No gaps given the tool's simplicity (one param, no nested objects).
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 0% schema coverage, description fully explains 'path' as 'Absolute path to the .ng file' and enumerates return dictionary keys, adding significant meaning beyond 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?
Clearly states 'Return metadata for a Norton Guide database file', specifying the resource (.ng file) and action (metadata retrieval). Distinguishes from siblings like list_menus or read_entry.
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?
Describes when to use: when metadata of a .ng file is needed, with clear parameter requirement. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but context with siblings implies differentiation.
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?
The description details the return structure, error condition (FileNotFoundError), and the requirement for an absolute path. It lacks explicit mention of being read-only, but that is implied by listing.
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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise and every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and a described output schema, the description covers all necessary information: input, output format, and error handling. No gaps.
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?
The only parameter 'path' is described as an absolute path to a .ng file, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type definition. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 all entries in a Norton Guide database file, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform searches or read individual entries.
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 purpose is clear, and the context implies when to use it (get an overview of entries). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention 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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it loads the short entry at offset, reads the link on the given line, and returns the plain-text content of the target long entry. It details the return structure (including source_offset, link_text, target_offset, lines, see_also) and raises exceptions for invalid inputs. This is thorough and transparent.
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 summary, detailed Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While not overly long, the Returns section is somewhat lengthy but informative. Each part earns its place, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.
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 complexity and the presence of an output schema (described in Returns), the description covers all necessary context: the concept of short vs. long entries, prerequisites (valid offset, line), error conditions, and complete return format. No gaps remain.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter: path is absolute path to .ng file, offset is byte offset of short entry, line is zero-based line index. This provides essential meaning beyond the raw schema, fully compensating 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 'Follow a link in a short entry and return the target long entry', specifying the action (follow a link) and the resource (short entry → long entry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_entry (which reads any entry directly) and list_entries (lists entries), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.
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 this tool: when you have a short entry with a link and want to navigate to the target long entry. It implies alternatives by describing the context of short vs. long entries, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you already know the target offset, use read_entry). This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return format (sorted list of dictionaries with path, name, size) and raises errors (FileNotFoundError, PermissionError). It also explains the directory parameter's behavior in detail.
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 concise yet structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 has only one optional parameter and returns a simple list of file info, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, return format, and error conditions. Output schema exists but description already explains the return.
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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the description adds meaningful context: directory is optional, restricts listing when given, and searches all configured directories when omitted. This compensates well.
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 'list' and the resource 'Norton Guide (.ng) files'. It specifies the scope 'available to the server', which differentiates it from sibling tools that perform search, following links, or reading entries.
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 clear context: it lists files, with an optional directory to restrict the listing. It explains behavior when directory is omitted versus provided, and mentions error conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools cover other operations.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the return value structure, error conditions (FileNotFoundError, ValueError), and the fact that it returns plain-text content.
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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) but is somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.
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, the description covers the return value (with keys and types), possible errors, and parameter purposes. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions. The description adds detailed meaning for both parameters: path is an absolute path to a .ng file, offset is a byte offset from list_entries or list_menus.
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: 'Return the full plain-text content of the entry at a given offset.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entries and read_entry_source.
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 that the offset comes from list_entries or list_menus, implying the tool is used after listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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:

[![ngmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davep/ngmcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davep/ngmcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ngmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davep/ngmcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/davep/ngmcp)

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/davep/ngmcp'

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