Hex API MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions: listing/searching projects, getting project details, managing runs (initiate, check status, cancel), and retrieving run lists. No overlap exists between tools like list_hex_projects (all production projects) and search_hex_projects (pattern-based search), or between run management tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'hex' prefix: list_hex_projects, search_hex_projects, get_hex_project, get_hex_project_runs, run_hex_project, get_hex_run_status, cancel_hex_run. The naming convention is perfectly uniform throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this is well-scoped for a Hex project management server. The count covers core operations (list, search, get, run, monitor runs) without being excessive or insufficient. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for Hex project management: discovery (list/search), inspection (get project details), execution (run project with parameters), run monitoring (status, list runs), and control (cancel run). No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 3 community issues answered or closed 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 AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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] the runs' and returns a 'JSON string,' but does not describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by limit/offset but not explained), error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose is front-loaded, and parameter and return details are concise. It avoids redundancy, though minor improvements could include integrating defaults or clarifying JSON structure.
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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors, side effects) and detailed return value explanation beyond 'JSON string.' Without annotations or output schema, more information is needed for the agent to use the tool effectively in varied scenarios.
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 lists parameters (project_id, limit, offset) and their purposes in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not elaborate on format details (e.g., UUID validation for project_id, default values for limit/offset, or constraints like minimum/maximum values). With low schema coverage, it partially compensates but lacks depth for full parameter 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: 'Get the runs for a specific project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('runs for a specific project'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' or 'run_hex_project,' which might also involve project runs, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' for status checks or 'run_hex_project' for initiating runs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON string with list of projects'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is paginated (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear.
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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words.
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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors), and doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling tools. The mention of return format is helpful but insufficient for a list tool with pagination parameters.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. However, the description doesn't mention the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters at all, nor does it explain their purpose (e.g., pagination). The baseline is 3 because the schema itself provides parameter definitions (with titles and defaults), but the description adds no semantic value beyond what's in 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Hex projects'), and specifies the scope ('all available... that are in production'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_hex_projects' or 'get_hex_project', which would be needed for 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hex_projects' or 'get_hex_project'. It mentions the scope ('in production') but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the alternatives are for.
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 only states basic action and return format. It misses critical behavioral details: whether this is a read/write operation, if it triggers long-running processes, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'update_published_results' entails (e.g., destructive changes).
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 a clear header and bullet points for args and returns. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the bullet format could be more streamlined (e.g., combining into prose). No wasted sentences, but minor structural improvements possible.
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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on execution behavior, error handling, return value structure beyond 'JSON string', and how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that likely triggers significant operations, this is inadequate.
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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters and adds minimal semantics (e.g., 'UUID' for project_id, 'Optional' for input_params), but doesn't explain parameter formats, what input_params should contain, or implications of update_published_results. This provides some value but leaves gaps.
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 'Run' and resource 'Hex project', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hex_project_runs' or 'get_hex_run_status', which might be related to execution monitoring.
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 'cancel_hex_run' or 'get_hex_run_status'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the project must be in a specific state, or when to choose this over other execution-related 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 the action is 'Cancel' but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., irreversible), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details error conditions. The mention of 'Success message' hints at output but lacks specifics, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 first ('Cancel a running project'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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 complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like side effects or error handling. For a cancellation tool, this leaves room for improvement in guiding safe and effective 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 beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'project_id' is 'The UUID of the Hex project' and 'run_id' is 'The UUID of the run to cancel', clarifying the nature and format of these parameters, which 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 action ('Cancel') and target ('a running project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' or 'run_hex_project', which would require mentioning it specifically stops execution versus monitoring or initiating runs.
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., the run must be in progress), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed runs), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' for checking status first, leaving the agent to infer usage 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. While it states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific 'run status details' might include. The return format is vaguely described as 'JSON string,' lacking detail on structure or typical fields.
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 well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the tool's function, and the subsequent lines provide essential parameter and return information 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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, authentication) and detailed return value explanation, which would be important for a status-checking tool in a workflow system.
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 explicitly documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'run_id') with clear semantic meaning ('UUID of the Hex project' and 'UUID of the run'), adding significant value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 ('status of a project run'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hex_project_runs' which might also provide run status information in a different context.
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_hex_project_runs' (which might list runs) and 'cancel_hex_run' (which might require status checks), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific status retrieval tool.
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 retrieves details (implying a read operation) and returns JSON, but doesn't describe error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific details are included in the response. For a tool with 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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on return structure, error cases, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for reliable agent invocation.
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 by specifying 'The UUID of the Hex project', which clarifies the format and purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Project Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't provide examples or constraints on the UUID 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 with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('about a specific Hex project'). It distinguishes this from list/search operations by focusing on a single project, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_hex_project_runs which also retrieves project-related information.
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 by specifying 'a specific Hex project' and requiring a project_id, suggesting this is for retrieving details of a known project rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_hex_projects or search_hex_projects, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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 discloses the return format ('JSON string with matching projects') and pagination behavior via offset/limit parameters, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then organized parameter explanations, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The Args/Returns formatting enhances readability without 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?
For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has gaps. It explains parameters well and states the return format, but doesn't describe the structure of returned projects, error handling, or operational constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should provide more complete context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: search_pattern ('Regex pattern to search for in project titles'), limit ('Maximum number of projects to return'), and offset ('Number of projects to skip for pagination'). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including default values and semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('Hex projects'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'regex pattern matching on project titles' - unlike list_hex_projects which presumably lists all projects without filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to search projects by title pattern) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It distinguishes from list_hex_projects by mentioning pattern matching, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison guidance.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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