Prefect MCP Server

by fortunto2

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: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources (flows, deployments, flow runs) with clear action verbs, but there is some overlap between filter_* and search_* tools that could cause confusion. For example, filter_deployments and search_deployments_by_status both filter deployments but use different approaches, and create_flow_run vs create_flow_run_from_deployment are similar with minor differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear conventions like get_*, list_*, create_*, filter_*, search_*, and cancel_*. All names use snake_case uniformly, making them predictable and easy to parse for an agent.
Tool Count4/5
With 17 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a workflow orchestration domain like Prefect, which requires operations across flows, deployments, and runs. It covers essential CRUD and query functions without being overwhelmingly bloated, though some tools could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for managing Prefect workflows, including full CRUD/lifecycle operations for flows, deployments, and flow runs (e.g., create, get, list, filter, search, cancel). There are no obvious gaps that would hinder an agent from performing typical orchestration tasks, and the surface supports complex filtering and searching needs.
Average 3.2/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- Last stable release on October 8, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the filter criteria follow Prefect API standards, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on execution (e.g., returns filtered results).
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. The example is helpful but could be more integrated; overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, but the description adds value by explaining the parameter as a dictionary with filter criteria and providing an example. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving details like valid keys or structure ambiguous.
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 verb ('filter') and resource ('flow runs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_flow_runs' or 'search_flow_runs_by_state', which appear to offer similar functionality.
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 'list_flow_runs' or 'search_flow_runs_by_state'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or preferable.
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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the flow doesn't exist (error vs. null return), whether it's case-sensitive, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant but adds minimal clutter.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context about authentication needs, error handling, and differentiation from alternatives, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 the parameter 'name' with the explanation 'Name of the flow to retrieve,' which provides basic semantics. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is the minimum viable information. It doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., string constraints) or provide examples, leaving the schema to handle details.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'flow by its name', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_flow_by_id' by specifying the lookup method. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other flow retrieval tools like 'filter_flows' or 'list_flows' beyond the name parameter.
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. With siblings like 'get_flow_by_id', 'filter_flows', and 'list_flows' available, there's no indication whether this is the preferred method for name-based retrieval, whether it requires exact name matching, or what happens if multiple flows share the same name.
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. It states the action ('Cancel') but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., stopping associated processes). This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a parameter explanation. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or idempotency, leaving gaps for safe agent use.
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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('flow_run_id: ID of the flow run to cancel'), clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID).
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 verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a flow run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_flow_runs_by_state' or 'get_flow_run_by_id' which might also involve flow runs but 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.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the flow run must be active), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed runs), or how it differs from related tools like 'filter_flow_runs' or 'list_flow_runs'.
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 this creates something (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the created flow run will do. The 'Legacy' note hints at deprecated functionality but lacks detail.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Legacy' parenthetical could be better integrated. The two-sentence format is appropriately concise for this tool.
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?
Given this is a creation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about when to use it versus alternatives, behavioral constraints, and the implications of 'Legacy' status.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'deployment_id' as 'ID of the deployment to create a run for' and 'parameters' as 'Dictionary with parameters for the flow run (optional).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify parameter format constraints or examples.
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 ('Create a new flow run') and target resource ('for the specified deployment'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'create_flow_run_from_deployment' - both appear to create flow runs, so the differentiation is unclear.
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 minimal guidance - only noting this is for 'Legacy' deployments. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus 'create_flow_run_from_deployment' or other flow run creation alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the legacy context.
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. It mentions that timeout=0 means no waiting for completion, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more polished. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the creation purpose and parameter semantics reasonably well. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what 'create' entails operationally. The parameter explanations help, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that deployment_id can be either an ID or name in 'flow_name/deployment_name' format, clarifies that parameters is optional and a dictionary, explains that name is optional, and specifies that timeout=0 means no waiting. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 creates a new flow run for a specified deployment, providing a specific verb (create) and resource (flow run). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_flow_run' by specifying 'from deployment', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'cancel_flow_run' or 'get_flow_run_by_id'.
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 when to use 'create_flow_run_from_deployment' instead of 'create_flow_run' or other flow-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a flow by its ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a brief 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action and parameter, but without annotations, it misses behavioral context like error handling or permissions. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall it's minimal yet functional.
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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'flow_id' is the 'ID of the flow to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide details like format, constraints, or examples. With only one parameter and low schema coverage, this is adequate but lacks depth, aligning with the baseline expectation.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a flow by its ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flow_by_name' or 'list_flows', which would require mentioning that this tool retrieves a single flow using its unique identifier rather than name or listing multiple flows.
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. With siblings like 'get_flow_by_name', 'list_flows', and 'filter_flows', it doesn't specify that this is for retrieving a specific flow when you have its ID, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.
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. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. The purpose is stated in a clear first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval operation. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools offering similar functionality, more context about when to choose this specific tool would improve completeness.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter ('flow_run_id: ID of the flow run to retrieve'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or provide examples. For a single parameter tool, this meets the baseline expectation.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a flow run by its ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_flow_by_id' or 'filter_flow_runs', which could retrieve similar data through different mechanisms.
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 like 'filter_flow_runs' or 'search_flow_runs_by_state'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, 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.
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 retrieving a list but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond limit/offset, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and direct, with no wasted words. However, the structure could be slightly improved by separating the purpose from parameter details more distinctly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but misses behavioral context like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited by the lack of usage guidelines and transparency.
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 adds meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' controls the maximum number of deployments returned, 'offset' skips deployments, and 'flow_id' filters deployments by flow. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail default values or optionality.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of deployments from the Prefect API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'filter_deployments' or 'search_deployments_by_status', which likely serve similar but distinct purposes.
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 like 'filter_deployments' or 'get_deployment_by_id'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
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. It states this is a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, and the subsequent lines clarify parameter semantics. There's no redundant or verbose language.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basics adequately. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral context (e.g., missing auth or rate limit info), it doesn't fully prepare an agent for real-world usage, resulting in a minimum viable score.
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 explicitly documents both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') with their purposes and default values, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, but it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., min/max values) or interactions, keeping it at an adequate baseline.
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 ('Get a list of flows') and resource ('from the Prefect API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'filter_flows' or 'search_flows', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_flows' or 'search_flows'. It mentions the API context but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the filtering capability and default limit, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no deployments match the criteria. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The formatting with 'Args:' header is helpful though not strictly necessary for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only 2 parameters with good description coverage, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, as a search tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about behavioral aspects like result ordering, pagination, or common use cases.
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 adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'is_schedule_active' filters deployments by whether their schedule is active (clarifying the boolean/null semantics), and specifies that 'limit' is the maximum number to return with a default of 20. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 as 'Search for deployments by schedule status', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_deployments' by focusing on schedule status filtering, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'filter_deployments' which might have broader filtering capabilities.
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 like 'filter_deployments', 'list_deployments', or 'search_flow_runs_by_state'. It mentions the filtering parameter but doesn't explain the specific use case for schedule status searches versus other filtering approaches.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches and returns results with a limit, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no parameters are provided (all optional).
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 clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise by combining related parameters.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job explaining the purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.
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 provides clear examples for state_type and state_name parameters (e.g., 'COMPLETED', 'Failed') and specifies the default value for limit. With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly compensates by explaining what each parameter means and how to use them, though it doesn't clarify the relationship between state_type and state_name.
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 searches for flow runs by state, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (flow runs). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'filter_flow_runs' or 'list_flow_runs', which likely offer similar functionality with different filtering approaches.
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 'filter_flow_runs' or 'list_flow_runs'. The description only explains what parameters it accepts, not the context or scenarios where this specific search method is preferred.
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 full burden. It mentions filtering based on criteria but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with invalid criteria. The example hints at API usage but lacks operational details.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for effective tool selection.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'filter_criteria' as a dictionary with filter criteria according to Prefect API and provides an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and format.
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 as 'Filter flows based on specified criteria,' which includes a specific verb ('filter') and resource ('flows'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_flows' by implying filtering rather than listing all, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_flows' or other filtering tools.
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 'list_flows,' 'search_flows,' or other filtering tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' a deployment, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The 'Args:' section is front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate labeled section.
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 this is a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. The main gaps are behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance relative to siblings, but for a straightforward lookup operation, it provides sufficient context.
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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'deployment_id: ID of the deployment to retrieve.' With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides title 'Deployment Id' and type 'string'), this description compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents. For a single parameter tool, this provides adequate semantic understanding.
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 'Get a deployment by its ID' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment') with a clear identifier mechanism ('by its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_deployment_by_name' by specifying the lookup method, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'filter_deployments' or 'list_deployments' 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.
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 when to choose this over 'get_deployment_by_name', 'filter_deployments', or 'list_deployments', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names alone.
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 this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the deployment doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. Both sentences earn their place by adding value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first. It could be slightly more efficient by combining the sentences, but it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter retrieval), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It adequately explains the parameter format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but overall completeness is limited by missing operational details.
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 description adds crucial semantic information beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'name' is a required string, while the description specifies the exact format: 'flow_name/deployment_name'. With 0% schema description coverage, this completely compensates by providing the necessary parameter context that the schema lacks.
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 ('Get') and resource ('deployment by its name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_by_id' or 'filter_deployments', which would require more specific context about when to use this exact tool versus alternatives.
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. With siblings like 'get_deployment_by_id', 'filter_deployments', and 'list_deployments', there's no indication of when this name-based retrieval is preferred over ID-based or filtered approaches, leaving usage context ambiguous.
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 mentions the API source ('Prefect API') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. The parameter descriptions add some context but don't cover broader operational traits.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the main text rather than listed separately.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear 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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all three parameters ('limit', 'offset', 'flow_id') with clear semantics, including defaults and optionality, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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: 'Get a list of flow runs from the Prefect API.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('flow runs'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'filter_flow_runs' or 'search_flow_runs_by_state' beyond the basic action.
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 like 'filter_flow_runs' or 'search_flow_runs_by_state'. It only lists parameters without context on optimal use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic filtering action without mentioning permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no deployments match criteria. For a tool with one complex parameter and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with parameter explanation and helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has one complex parameter (nested object), no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The parameter explanation with examples is excellent, but behavioral aspects (permissions, rate limits, error conditions) are missing. The output schema existence means return values don't need description, but other contextual 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: it explains the single parameter is a dictionary with filter criteria according to Prefect API, and gives two concrete examples showing different filtering approaches (boolean condition and tag filtering). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 verb ('filter') and resource ('deployments'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_deployments' and 'search_deployments_by_status' by specifying filtering based on criteria rather than simple listing or status-based searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get_deployment_by_id'.
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 like 'list_deployments' or 'search_deployments_by_status'. It mentions filtering 'based on specified criteria' but doesn't explain what scenarios warrant this over simpler listing tools or when to choose other filtering siblings.
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 mentions search behavior ('case-insensitive contains match') and a default limit, but doesn't disclose other critical traits like pagination, sorting, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., search scope, result format hints). With no annotations and an output schema, it should ideally mention more about the search behavior or limitations to be fully adequate.
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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains all three parameters: 'name' as an optional case-insensitive contains match, 'tags' as an optional list for filtering, and 'limit' with its default value. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing clear semantics for each parameter.
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: 'Search for flows by name and/or tags.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('flows'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'filter_flows' or 'list_flows' by emphasizing search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_flow_runs_by_state' or 'search_deployments_by_status' beyond the resource type.
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 through the phrase 'Search for flows by name and/or tags,' suggesting it's for finding flows based on these criteria. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_flows' or 'get_flow_by_name,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.
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:

[![prefect-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fortunto2/prefect-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fortunto2/prefect-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![prefect-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fortunto2/prefect-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/fortunto2/prefect-mcp-server)

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/fortunto2/prefect-mcp-server'

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