ARGENTUM

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with zero overlap: submit_action creates new entries, attest_action verifies existing ones, get_action_detail retrieves specific actions by ID, get_karma queries aggregate entity reputation, and get_leaderboard shows global rankings.
Naming Consistency4/5
Follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern throughout. Minor deviation with get_action_detail using a compound noun suffix compared to simpler forms like get_karma, but the convention remains predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools is an ideal scope for this focused reputation/attestation domain, covering the complete lifecycle (creation, verification, individual read, entity read, global ranking) without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
Covers essential operations for the karma system: action submission, attestation (verification), and multiple query dimensions (specific action, entity profile, leaderboard). Minor gap in global action browsing (no list_actions), though entity-based discovery via get_karma provides a workable alternative.
Average 3.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 5 of 5 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 232 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 3, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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 present, and the description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether the operation is readonly, potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but contains a redundant line restating the parameter from the schema. It could be more concise by removing the repetition. The primary purpose sentence is front-loaded.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks essential context like error handling, resource availability, or relation to sibling tools. The description is too sparse for a basic retrieval tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value. The line 'trail_id: the trail id' merely repeats the parameter name and type from the schema, offering no additional constraints, format hints, 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 tool retrieves details of a Mycelium Trail including its step sequence. The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_trails or get_action_detail.
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 specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation by saying 'Get details'. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format specifics.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the parameter. No unnecessary words.
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 presence of an output schema (though not described), the description is minimally adequate for a simple 1-parameter tool. However, it lacks behavioral context and does not explain what 'attestations' entails or how the output relates to other tools.
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?
With only one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining 'action_id: the action to look up', but this largely restates the schema field name and type. It does not provide format constraints or usage caveats.
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 'Get details of a specific action including attestations,' which is a specific verb+resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_trail', the term 'action' is distinct enough.
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 such as 'list_trails' or 'submit_action'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on error (e.g., entity not found).
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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter. However, the parameter explanation could be integrated into the schema description. Overall, it's efficient but could be more structured.
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?
The presence of an output schema offloads return value explanation. However, the description lacks details on what 'karma' entails, behavior when entity is invalid, or pagination. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'entity_id' parameter as 'the entity to look up,' adding context beyond the schema's title 'Entity Id.' This is helpful but minimal; no other parameters exist, so it's adequate.
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 ('Check') and resource ('entity's karma, verified actions, and attestations given'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_action_detail and get_trail, which focus on different entities.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states one constraint (cannot rate own trail) but omits critical details such as whether ratings are immutable, how they affect system state or karma, permission requirements, or whether a previous rating can be overwritten.
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 extremely concise, using a brief sentence to state purpose and constraint, followed by a simple list of parameters. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description does not cover side effects, output expectations (despite an output schema existing), or usage context. It lacks important details such as whether ratings are anonymous, if they influence user reputation, or how errors are handled. This leaves the agent with significant knowledge gaps for correct selection and invocation.
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 parameter descriptions in the text are minimal but provide basic mapping: 'trail_id: the trail', 'execution_id: the execution to rate', 'rating: 1..5'. Given 0% schema coverage, this adds value beyond the schema titles, though it lacks format constraints, examples, or further detail like rating precision.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action is to rate a Trail execution on a scale of 1 to 5, and specifies that it cannot be applied to one's own trail. This effectively communicates the tool's core purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools such as 'execute_trail' or 'submit_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 mentions a constraint ('Cannot rate own trail') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attest_action' or 'get_karma'. There is no explanation of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which rating is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if a duplicate action is submitted. No contradictions with annotations exist because none are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus a clean parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a readable structure. Every sentence and bullet adds value, making it efficient for an agent 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 no annotations and an output schema present but not described, the description covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context. It does not explain the response format, side effects, or verification process, leaving some gaps for a submission tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief contextual explanations (e.g., 'entity_id: your unique identifier (e.g. GitHub username)') and explicitly enumerates allowed action types, which the schema lacks. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare parameter names.
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 submits an action to ARGENTUM for verification. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like attest_action, which might serve a related purpose.
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 such as attest_action or get_action_detail. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage heuristics.
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 provided; description only mentions karma weight but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects (e.g., whether attestation is reversible), or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Description is short and front-loaded with purpose, then lists parameters. Could be more structured but is concise and clear.
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?
Output schema exists but description does not explain return values or success/failure indicators. For a verification tool, the outcome (e.g., confirmation or error) is missing. Adequate but incomplete for an untrusting agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning for each parameter: 'action_id: the action to attest', etc., beyond schema titles. However, notes on format or constraints are absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Attest (verify) someone else's action' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the context of karma weight counting toward verification, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_action.
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?
Implies usage for verifying actions, but does not explicitly state when to use or not, nor mention alternatives like get_action_detail for viewing actions.
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?
Discloses that executor self-attests success/failure and lists optional fields. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not cover side effects, required permissions, or error handling.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Parameter list is clear but slightly redundant with the schema; still each sentence adds value.
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?
Covers all parameters but lacks information about return values (output schema exists, but content unknown), error scenarios, or prerequisites for execution.
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 coverage, the description explains all parameters with practical meaning (e.g., 'your unique identifier'). It adds value beyond schema titles, though some details like exact allowed values for status are implied but not enforced.
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 records execution of a Mycelium Trail with self-attestation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trail or rate_trail by specifying a distinct 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., submit_action, register_trail). No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites mentioned.
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 sort and limit parameters but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior when limit exceeds max.
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?
Extremely concise, with only two lines of parameter clarification after the main sentence. No wasted words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple listing, the description provides enough context. However, it could mention that it returns an array of trails and does not support filtering.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: sort options and limit default/max. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Mycelium Trails available for execution, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_trail or get_trail.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to list vs using get_trail for a specific trail.
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 bears full responsibility. It states 'register' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing trails).
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 concise, with one introductory sentence and a clear parameter list. It front-loads the purpose. However, the list format could be more structured (e.g., using Markdown).
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 complexity (6 required params, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers parameter meanings and basic purpose. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, and output details, but the output schema likely fills that gap.
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?
All six parameters are explained with semantic meaning beyond their titles (e.g., 'author_id: your unique identifier', 'steps_json: JSON list of steps...'). This compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Register') and resource ('Mycelium Trail — a verifiable recipe of MCP service calls'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'execute_trail' (run) and 'get_trail' (read).
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 (creating a trail) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'execute_trail' or 'list_trails'. No guidance on when not to use it.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 'top' parameter and default value but does not specify sorting order, caching behavior, or authentication needs.
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 extremely concise with two short lines: a clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, lacking details about result ordering or limits is a minor gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It defines the 'top' parameter with its purpose and default, providing value beyond the schema's integer type.
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 retrieves the karma leaderboard, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_karma' and 'rate_trail'.
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 when not to use it or any prerequisites.
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:

[![argentum-core MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giskard09/argentum-core/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giskard09/argentum-core)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![argentum-core MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giskard09/argentum-core/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/giskard09/argentum-core)

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/giskard09/argentum-core'

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