Suzu (鈴) - Claude Code Notification Server

by denar90

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some potential overlap between 'notify' and 'task_completed' as both involve showing notifications with sound. The descriptions clarify that 'task_completed' is for task completion specifically, while 'notify' is general, but an agent might still confuse them in certain contexts. Other tools like configuration and token management are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern throughout, which is good. However, there is a mix of verb_noun (e.g., 'configure_custom_sounds', 'refresh_spotify_token') and noun_verb (e.g., 'question_alert') structures, causing minor inconsistency. The naming is still readable and mostly predictable, with only a few deviations from a strict verb-first convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a notification server, covering configuration, token management, notifications, and debugging. Each tool has a clear role, such as setting up sounds, handling alerts, and testing configurations, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core notification workflows, including configuration, token refresh, and various alert types. However, there are minor gaps, such as no tool for updating or deleting configurations, which might require workarounds. Overall, it supports the server's purpose well, with only a few missing operations for full lifecycle management.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
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
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'test' but doesn't explain what happens during testing—e.g., does it play the sound audibly, log results, require specific permissions, or have side effects? This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely involves audio output or system interaction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details like the sound types if needed for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what 'testing' involves behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to sibling tools. For a sound-related tool, this lack of context leaves gaps in understanding its role and effects.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sound_type' fully documented via enum and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why these sound types are relevant or how they're used in testing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test a specific sound configuration' clearly states the action (test) and target (sound configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what 'test' entails—does it play the sound, validate settings, or something else? It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_custom_sounds' (setup vs. testing), but lacks specificity on the verb's meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for verifying sound settings after configuration (vs. 'configure_custom_sounds') or for general notifications (vs. 'notify' or 'question_alert'). Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent has minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Set up') but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires authentication, overwrites existing sounds, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Set up custom sounds from Spotify, YouTube, or local files') earns its place by specifying the action and sources.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (configuration tool with 3 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, success/failure responses, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies system settings, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameters relate to sound sources and types, but it doesn't explain interactions (e.g., how 'value' varies by 'source'). 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set up') and the resource ('custom sounds'), specifying the sources (Spotify, YouTube, local files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_spotify_tokens' or 'test_sound' by focusing on configuration rather than authentication or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'show_config' might be related), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing tokens for Spotify/YouTube), exclusions (e.g., not for system sounds), or comparisons to siblings like 'configure_spotify_tokens' or 'test_sound'. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool configures tokens but doesn't describe what 'configure' entails—whether it stores tokens persistently, validates them, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like overwriting existing configurations. For a tool handling authentication tokens with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero wasted words, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (handling authentication tokens for notifications) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after configuration—e.g., whether tokens are validated, how they're used in notifications, or error handling. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and integration context.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The baseline score is 3 because the schema adequately documents the parameters, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics, but it also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure Spotify access and refresh tokens for custom music notifications.' It specifies the verb ('configure'), resource ('Spotify access and refresh tokens'), and context ('for custom music notifications'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refresh_spotify_token' or 'configure_custom_sounds,' which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Spotify credentials), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'refresh_spotify_token' for token renewal or 'configure_custom_sounds' for other notification settings. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it shows a notification with sound. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as user interaction effects, platform dependencies, or whether it's blocking/non-blocking, leaving significant gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or visual/auditory effects, making it incomplete for a notification tool with potential user impact.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying sound is involved, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show') and resource ('general notification with sound'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'question_alert' or 'test_sound', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'question_alert' or 'test_sound'. The description implies general notifications but lacks explicit context or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'alerts the user,' it doesn't specify how this alert manifests (visual notification, sound, etc.), whether it's interruptive, what permissions might be required, or any rate limits. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple alert tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is an alert/notification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the alert looks like, how it's delivered, what happens after the alert, or any error conditions. For a tool that presumably interacts with the user interface, more behavioral context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('question' and 'context') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Alert the user when Claude is asking additional questions or needs clarification.' This specifies the verb ('alert') and the trigger condition (Claude asking questions/needing clarification). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'notify' tool, which appears to be a more general notification tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'notify' tool or explain why one would choose this specific alert tool over a general notification mechanism. There's no information about prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool plays a sound and shows a message, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires user permissions, if it's synchronous or asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., interrupting other tasks), or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a notification action with user interaction) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error cases, or what happens after the notification (e.g., does it return a status?). For a tool that could have side effects or require specific conditions, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('message' and 'sound_type'), including defaults and an enum for 'sound_type'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the context of the message or sound types. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Play a notification sound and show a message when a task is completed.' It specifies the verb ('play' and 'show') and resource ('notification sound' and 'message'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'notify' or 'question_alert', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'notify' or 'question_alert'. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess when this specific notification method is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool 'refreshes' a token, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., invalidating old tokens), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('refresh') and key details ('manually', 'configured refresh endpoint'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a mutation (token refresh) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on success/failure outcomes, token lifecycle implications, or integration with other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('refresh') and the resource ('Spotify access token'), specifying it's done 'manually' using the 'configured refresh endpoint'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_spotify_tokens', which might handle initial token setup rather than refresh operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'configured refresh endpoint' but doesn't specify triggers (e.g., token expiration), prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'configure_spotify_tokens' or 'show_config' for token status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Display') for debugging purposes, which suggests it's likely safe and non-destructive. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like whether it shows sensitive data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description adds basic context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter debugging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does and its debugging context, but doesn't explain what the configuration output looks like or any limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for more complete guidance about the expected output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('current Suzu configuration'), and specifies the context ('for debugging'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the debugging focus provides some implicit distinction from configuration tools like configure_custom_sounds.
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 usage context ('for debugging') which suggests when this tool might be appropriate, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The debugging context is helpful but lacks specificity about when this is the right choice among sibling tools.
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:

[![suzu-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denar90/suzu-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denar90/suzu-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![suzu-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denar90/suzu-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/denar90/suzu-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/denar90/suzu-mcp'

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