The Project Handoffs MCP Server is a tool for managing AI session handoffs and tracking next steps within projects.
With this server, you can:
Create and delete projects for organizing your work
Create next steps with title, description, priority, dependencies, and parent steps
Start working sessions for specific next steps
Complete sessions by creating handoffs with details about completed work, code state, unresolved issues, and new next steps
Retrieve open next steps ordered by priority
View complete history for specific next steps
Access templates for next steps, working sessions, and handoffs
Prioritize tasks using levels like 'core-critical', 'full-required', and 'enhancement'
Referenced in the configuration example for running the MCP server, used to locate the Node.js executable on macOS systems.
Manages dependencies and provides build scripts for the project handoffs MCP server, supporting installation and development workflows.
Uses TypeScript for type-safe implementation of the project handoffs tracking system, including proper error handling and consistent state management.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Project Handoffs MCP Server create a new project for the customer portal redesign"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP server for managing AI session handoffs and next steps tracking.
NextStep → WorkingSession → Handoff → New NextStep chains
Project-based organization
Priority levels mapped to implementation impact:
core-critical: Critical for working implementation
full-required: Necessary for desired implementation
enhancement: Improvements and optimizations
Related MCP server: Context Management System
list_templates - List available templates for next steps, working sessions, and handoffs
create_project - Create a new project for tracking AI session handoffs
delete_project - Delete a project and all its data
create_next_step - Create a new next step in a project
start_working_session - Start working on a next step
create_handoff - Complete a working session with handoff details
get_latest_next_steps - Get open next steps ordered by priority
get_next_step_history - Get complete history of a next step including session and handoff
npm install
npm run buildAdd to your MCP configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"project-handoffs": {
"command": "/opt/homebrew/bin/node",
"args": ["/path/to/project-handoffs/build/index.js"],
"alwaysAllow": []
}
}
}project-handoffs/
├── src/
│ ├── index.ts # Server implementation
│ ├── templates.ts # Entity templates
│ ├── types.ts # TypeScript types
│ └── errors.ts # Error handling
├── package.json
└── README.md# Install dependencies
npm install
# Development mode
npm run dev
# Build
npm run build
## Implementation Details
- Error handling through ProjectError class
- Template validation for all entity types
- Consistent state management
- Safe data persistence with proper error handling
- Type-safe implementation following project-memory-server patterns
## Security
If you discover a security vulnerability, please create a new issue with the label 'security'. We take all security reports seriously and will respond promptly.
## Contributing
Contributions are welcome. Feel free to submit a Pull Request.
## License
This project is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 - see the [LICENSE](LICENSE) file for details.Complete a working session with handoff details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier | |
| sessionId | Yes | Working session ID | |
| completedWork | Yes | Summary of completed work | |
| codeState | Yes | Current state of codebase | |
| environmentState | Yes | Development environment state | |
| unresolvedIssues | No | List of unresolved issues | |
| newNextSteps | No | List of new next steps identified |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('complete') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to the session post-completion. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects, permissions), usage context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Complete[s] a working session with handoff details', which provides a clear verb ('complete') and resource ('working session'). However, it doesn't specify what 'handoff details' entail or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'start_working_session' or 'create_next_step', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an active session), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'start_working_session' or 'create_next_step', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new next step in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier | |
| title | Yes | Brief title of the next step | |
| description | Yes | Detailed description of work | |
| priority | Yes | Implementation priority level | |
| parentStepId | No | ID of parent step if this is a substep | |
| dependencies | No | IDs of steps that must be completed first |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success. It mentions the action but lacks critical operational details for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters like 'parentStepId' and 'dependencies'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new next step in a project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_handoff' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'create_project' or 'create_handoff'. The description implies usage for adding steps to existing projects but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new project for tracking AI session handoffs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| description | Yes | Project description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response includes (e.g., project ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a simple creation operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are important for a mutation tool without annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('name' and 'description') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints, examples, or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new project'), and specifies the purpose ('for tracking AI session handoffs'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_handoff' or 'create_next_step', which appear related to the same domain but have different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'create_handoff' or 'create_next_step', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a project and all its data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, what 'all its data' entails, error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and scope efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on consequences, return values, error handling, or permissions, leaving the agent under-informed about critical aspects of invoking this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented as 'Project identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a project and all its data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'create_project' beyond the obvious action difference, lacking specific scope or nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or should be used over other deletion methods, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get open next steps ordered by priority
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or add context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'open' means operationally (e.g., status filtering). It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get open next steps ordered by priority'. It front-loads the core action and key details (open status, priority ordering), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with filtering and ordering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key constraints (open, priority) but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema as 'Project identifier'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('open next steps'), and specifies ordering ('by priority'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_next_step_history' (which retrieves historical data) and 'create_next_step' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'list_templates' or 'start_working_session', which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId), exclusions (e.g., not for closed next steps), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_next_step_history' for historical data. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get complete history of a next step including session and handoff
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier | |
| stepId | Yes | Next step ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves history data, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'complete history' entails (e.g., timestamps, changes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant details (session and handoff) without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'complete history' returns (e.g., structured data, timestamps), behavioral traits like error handling, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (projectId and stepId). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get complete history') and resource ('of a next step'), specifying it includes session and handoff information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_next_steps' or 'start_working_session' that might also retrieve step-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'get_latest_next_steps' or 'create_handoff'. It mentions what data is included but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List available templates for next steps, working sessions, and handoffs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists templates but doesn't describe any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a broader context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose, which aligns well with the schema's simplicity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('available templates'), specifying the template types ('for next steps, working sessions, and handoffs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_next_steps' or 'get_next_step_history', which might also involve templates or next steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'create_handoff' or 'start_working_session', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start working on a next step
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project identifier | |
| nextStepId | Yes | ID of the next step to work on |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but is insufficient. 'Start working' implies a state change or mutation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, affects other data (e.g., locking the step), has side effects, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., returns a session ID). Critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally structured—it could be more front-loaded with key details, but it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'starting work' means operationally, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with the system (e.g., is it idempotent?). For a mutation tool, this lack of context is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Project identifier' and 'ID of the next step to work on'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'nextStepId' relates to other tools or what constitutes a valid ID, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start working on a next step' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'start_working_session' without specifying what 'working' entails (e.g., initiating a timer, logging activity, or updating status). It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_next_step_history' or 'create_next_step', leaving the agent unclear about its specific function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. For instance, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before 'create_next_step' or after 'get_latest_next_steps', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing project or next step. The description offers no context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'create_handoff' and 'start_working_session' could be slightly ambiguous as both relate to working sessions. The other tools clearly target different resources like projects, next steps, and templates, with minimal overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as 'create_project', 'delete_project', 'get_latest_next_steps', and 'list_templates'. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate for an agent.
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing project handoffs, covering key operations like creating, deleting, and retrieving projects, next steps, and sessions. The count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming, fitting the domain effectively.
The tool set provides good coverage for project handoffs, including CRUD for projects and next steps, session management, and template listing. A minor gap exists in updating or deleting next steps and handoffs, which could limit agent flexibility in modifying existing data.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
AI-native project management for tasks, docs, collaboration, and agents.
Manage tasks, projects, roadmaps, files, meetings, and team workflows with AI tools.
Project management for teams and their AI agents.
Shared project context for AI agents and teams: docs, tasks, and messages that stay current.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidorex/project-handoffs'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
