stitch-bridge

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: projects vs screens, and create/edit/list/get/build each have clear separation. No two tools appear to do the same thing, even generate_screen and edit_screen are differentiated by new vs existing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_projects, create_project, generate_screen, edit_screen, etc.). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a UI design/build server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The set covers core lifecycle operations for projects and screens, including creation, retrieval, editing, and site building. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operations for projects or screens, but these are workaround-able and not critical for the primary workflow.
Average 3.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the creation action and the resource container, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, return values, or constraints. The parenthetical adds conceptual context but not behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the 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?
For a simple creation tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about return values, success indicators, or prerequisites. Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent would benefit from a bit more context, but the tool's simplicity makes this adequate.
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 fully documents the single 'title' parameter as optional with a description, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed given the complete schema.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('Stitch project'), and the parenthetical clarifies it as a container for UI designs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or generate_screen.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or generate_screen. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, with no exclusions or direct comparisons.
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, but it only states that the tool edits a screen and returns an ID and HTML. It does not reveal potential side effects, dependency on a generative model, or the irreversibility of the change, which are important for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and efficiently conveys the return value. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 description covers the core purpose and return value, and the schema accounts for all parameters, but the tool has no output schema or annotations. It omits context about model selection, device targeting, and the nature of the edit (regenerative vs. incremental), leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.
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?
Since the schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds minimal additional meaning beyond clarifying that the edit is prompt-driven, which aligns with the existing 'prompt' description. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') with a clear resource ('existing screen') and method ('using a text prompt'), which distinguishes it from generation tools like generate_screen. It also states the return value (updated screen ID and HTML), providing concrete expectations.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_screen or generate_variants. While 'existing screen' implies modification, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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 communicates that the operation reads and returns all screens, but it does not describe the response format, error handling, ordering, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation-based safety flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It precisely states the action and target, and for a simple list operation, this level of brevity is appropriate.
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 tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining return values and edge cases. It states the core function but omits what a screen entry includes, whether pagination exists, and what happens if the projectId is invalid. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to plan subsequent actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, projectId, with a clear description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for coverage but provides no extra value.
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 specifies the action (list), the resource (screens), and the scope (in a Stitch project). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_projects, generate_screen, and edit_screen.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The verb 'list' and the sibling tool names imply it is the right choice for enumerating screens, but this is left implicit. No explicit guidance is provided.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that HTML is returned for each page, but does not state whether the operation modifies existing data, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for an action verb like 'build'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the return type. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and return format. However, the lack of annotations and any mention of preconditions or side effects leaves some gaps, but these are minor for the level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full 100% descriptive coverage for both parameters (projectId and routes). The description adds contextual meaning about the purpose (mapping screens to routes) but does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already explains.
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: building a multi-page site from a project by mapping screens to URL routes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_screen or list_screens by focusing on the site assembly process and explicit screen-to-route mapping.
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 use when a user wants to combine screens into a multi-page site, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like generate_screen or get_screen_html. There is no direct mention of when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the return value ('screen ID and full HTML content') and implies a creation action ('Generate a new UI screen'), but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently includes the return value. Every word earns its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does and what it returns. The schema covers all parameters, including defaults for enums. Minor gaps like side effects are present but not critical for a simple generation tool.
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 100%, and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: 'Generate a new UI screen from a text prompt.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('UI screen'), and the word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_screen and generate_variants.
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 such as edit_screen, generate_variants, or build_site. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the base64 encoding format, which is useful, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, permissions, or that no screen is modified, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output format. There is no fluff or redundant information, ensuring the agent can quickly parse the key functionality.
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?
For a simple read-only screenshot tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the return format (base64 image) and the action. It lacks details on edge cases like invalid IDs or image format specifics, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema covering required parameters, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its two parameters, but the descriptions 'Screen ID' and 'Project ID' are minimal. The tool description does not add any contextual meaning to the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline for schemas with high 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a screenshot of a screen', with the output format 'as base64-encoded image'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen_html (HTML content) and generate_screen (creation), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this when a visual screenshot is needed' or 'prefer get_screen_html for source code'. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('array of screen IDs and HTML') and implies creation of variants, but it does not mention side effects such as persistence, permissions, potential costs, or rate limits. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.
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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. It states the purpose first and then the output format, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and output but lacks usage context and behavioral detail. The schema is rich, which compensates, but the description remains minimal and would benefit from mentioning side effects or differentiating from alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('design variants of an existing screen') that clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_screen (creating a new screen) and edit_screen (modifying an existing one).
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 when to use the tool by specifying 'existing screen', which indicates a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for new screens use generate_screen). The context is present but not fully elaborated.
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, the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals that the tool returns actual HTML code, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and distinguishes the return type. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (2 well-documented parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It also benefits from sibling context (get_screen_image) that clarifies the niche. Minor gaps remain, such as not explaining potential response size or HTML source, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters have descriptive names and meanings ('Project ID', 'Screen ID'). The description adds no further parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 function: 'Get the full HTML content of a screen.' It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Returns the actual HTML code, not just a URL,' which differentiates it from get_screen_image.
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 use when needing HTML code rather than a URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_screen_image or build_site. The 'not just a URL' phrasing offers implicit guidance but no explicit 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, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and mentions the accessibility scope, but does not disclose response format, ordering, or pagination. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately.
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?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It does not describe return format, but the nature of the tool makes this 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. No additional parameter semantics are needed; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 (List) and the resource (Stitch projects), and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on screens or builds. It also specifies user scope, making it unmistakably different from list_screens.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool—whenever projects need to be listed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the sibling tool names.
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:

[![stitch-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jlhernando/stitch-bridge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jlhernando/stitch-bridge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![stitch-bridge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jlhernando/stitch-bridge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jlhernando/stitch-bridge)

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/jlhernando/stitch-bridge'

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