A
licenseC
qualityC
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server enabling product searches across e-commerce platforms, price history tracking, and product specification-based searches using natural language prompts.
2
19
MIT
Bargainer MCP Server
The Bargainer MCP Server is a Model Context Protocol server that enables users to find, aggregate, filter, and compare deals from multiple sources (including Slickdeals, RapidAPI, and web scraping) through natural language commands in a chat interface.
Key capabilities:
Search Deals: Find deals using keywords, stores, categories, price ranges, and minimum ratings
Get Top Deals: Retrieve trending deals from all or specific sources with configurable limits
Filter Deals: Apply advanced filtering criteria like tags, stores, categories, price range, and rating range
Get Deal Details: Fetch detailed information about specific deals using their unique ID
Compare Deals: Compare similar deals to identify the best options based on your criteria
Get Available Sources: List all configured deal sources to understand where deals are being pulled from
Interactive Chat Interface: Access all functionality through a web-based chat interface using natural language commands
Provides the web server functionality for hosting the chat interface and API endpoints.
Provides integration for repository access, contribution management, and issue tracking for the Bargainer MCP client.
Serves as the runtime environment for the Bargainer MCP server with support for Node.js 18+.
Integrates with the RapidAPI marketplace for finding and comparing deals across multiple sources.
Enables real-time messaging in the web-based chat interface for interactive deal searching.
Powers the fully typed codebase with strict type checking for improved development experience.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Bargainer MCP ServerFind laptop deals under $500"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Bargainer MCP Client ποΈ
A powerful Model Context Protocol (MCP) client for finding and comparing deals from multiple sources including Slickdeals, RapidAPI marketplace, and web scraping. Features a modern web-based chat interface for interactive deal searching.
Features β¨
Multi-Source Deal Aggregation: Integrates with Slickdeals API, RapidAPI marketplace, and web scraping
Interactive Chat Interface: Modern web UI with real-time messaging via Socket.IO
Intelligent Deal Filtering: Filter by price, rating, store, and category
Deal Comparison: Compare deals across multiple sources
MCP Protocol Integration: Full Model Context Protocol implementation with 6 specialized tools
Provider Pattern Architecture: Extensible design for adding new deal sources
TypeScript: Fully typed codebase with strict type checking
Related MCP server: Market FiyatΔ± MCP Server
Quick Start π
Prerequisites
Node.js 18+
npm or yarn
API keys for external services (optional, fallback to mock data)
Installation
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/karthiksivaramms/bargainer-mcp-client.git
cd bargainer-mcp-client
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build the project
npm run buildUsage
Web Chat Interface
# Start the web interface
npm run web
# Or with auto-reload for development
npm run dev:webThen open http://localhost:3001 in your browser and start chatting!
MCP Server
# Start the MCP server
npm run dev
# Or run the built version
npm startDemo & Testing
# Run interactive demo
npm run demo
# Test the server
npm run test:serverAvailable Commands π¬
Use these natural language commands in the chat interface:
Search deals: "Find laptop deals under $500"
Get top deals: "Show me today's top electronics deals"
Filter deals: "Gaming headphones under $100 with 4+ stars"
Deal details: "Tell me more about this iPhone deal"
Compare deals: "Compare iPad deals across sources"
List sources: "What deal sources are available?"
MCP Tools π οΈ
The server provides 6 specialized tools:
search_deals - Search for deals by product name or keywords
get_top_deals - Get trending deals from all sources
filter_deals - Filter deals by price, rating, store, category
get_deal_details - Get detailed information about specific deals
compare_deals - Compare deals across multiple sources
get_available_sources - List all configured deal sources
Architecture ποΈ
src/
βββ server.ts # Main MCP server
βββ providers/ # Deal source providers
β βββ base.ts # Base provider interface
β βββ slickdeals.ts # Slickdeals API provider
β βββ rapidapi.ts # RapidAPI marketplace provider
β βββ webscraping.ts # Web scraping provider
βββ services/
β βββ aggregator.ts # Deal aggregation service
βββ types/ # TypeScript type definitions
ui/
βββ index.html # Chat interface
βββ chat-interface.js # Frontend JavaScript
βββ server.js # Express server with Socket.IO
test/ # Test files
scripts/ # Utility scriptsContributing π€
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Development Setup
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Start development with auto-reload
npm run dev
# Start web interface with auto-reload
npm run dev:web
# Run linting
npm run lint
# Format code
npm run formatAdding New Deal Sources
Create a new provider in
src/providers/Extend
BaseDealProviderImplement required methods
Register in
aggregator.ts
API Documentation π
Deal Object Structure
interface Deal {
id: string;
title: string;
price: number;
originalPrice?: number;
discount?: number;
rating?: number;
store: string;
url: string;
imageUrl?: string;
description?: string;
category?: string;
source: string;
timestamp: Date;
}License π
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
Author π¨βπ»
Karthik Sivaram M
GitHub: @karthiksivaramms
Support π‘
If you have any questions or run into issues, please open an issue on GitHub.
Roadmap πΊοΈ
More deal source integrations
Deal alerts and notifications
Price history tracking
Advanced filtering options
Mobile app version
Deal sharing features
Made with β€οΈ for bargain hunters everywhere!
Available Tools
6 toolscompare_dealsC
Compare similar deals and find the best options
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deals | Yes | Array of deals to compare |
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
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 comparing and finding best options but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as how comparison is performed (e.g., criteria, algorithms), output format, error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by including key details like comparison criteria, but it earns points for brevity.
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 of a comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how the comparison works, what 'best' means, and the expected return values. For a tool that likely involves ranking or analysis, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting that 'deals' is a required array. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a valid deal object in the array or provide examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no additional insights are offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as comparing deals to find best options, which is clear but vague. It specifies 'compare similar deals' but doesn't define what constitutes 'similar' or what 'best options' means. It distinguishes from siblings like 'filter_deals' or 'get_deal_details' by focusing on comparison rather than filtering or retrieval, but the distinction isn't explicit.
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 like 'filter_deals' or 'get_top_deals'. The description implies usage for comparison scenarios, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for pre-selected deals or if it integrates with search results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
filter_dealsC
Filter deals using advanced criteria
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deals | Yes | Array of deals to filter | |
| categories | No | Categories to include | |
| stores | No | Stores to include | |
| priceRange | No | Price range filter | |
| ratingRange | No | Rating range filter | |
| tags | No | Tags to filter by |
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
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. 'Filter deals' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a safe query, what happens with invalid inputs, whether it's paginated, or what the output format looks like. It mentions 'advanced criteria' but doesn't explain what makes them advanced or how they're applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including nested objects) and lack of other documentation. Every word earns its place, but more information might be warranted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'deal' object, how filtering logic works (AND/OR between criteria), what the output looks like, or error conditions. The agent must rely heavily on the schema alone without contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples of valid values, or clarify the 'advanced criteria' mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'filters deals using advanced criteria', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'advanced criteria' means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_deals' or 'get_top_deals' that might also involve filtering operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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 'search_deals' and 'get_top_deals' that likely involve filtering, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or what scenarios it's designed for. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_available_sourcesB
Get list of available deal sources/providers
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
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 a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, which could be helpful for an AI agent despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately addresses the lack of parameters without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get list') and resource ('available deal sources/providers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'search_deals' or 'filter_deals'), which also deal with deal-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_deals' and 'filter_deals' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for metadata retrieval, initial setup, or other contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_deal_detailsC
Get detailed information about a specific deal
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dealId | Yes | The ID of the deal to get details for | |
| source | No | The source of the deal (optional) |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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 it 'gets' information without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured to include usage context.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It fails to explain what 'detailed information' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for full contextual 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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional context.
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 'detailed information about a specific deal', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top_deals' or 'search_deals' which also retrieve deal information, missing the specificity 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_deals' or 'get_top_deals'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_top_dealsC
Get top/trending deals from all or specific sources
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of deals to return | |
| sources | No | Specific sources to get deals from |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format (e.g., sorted by trending metrics). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with external data sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'top/trending' means (e.g., based on views, time, or other metrics), the return structure, or error handling. For a tool with potential complexity in sourcing and ranking deals, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'sources') adequately. The description adds minimal value by implying parameter usage ('from all or specific sources' hints at 'sources'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top/trending deals'), and specifies scope ('from all or specific sources'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'filter_deals' or 'search_deals' that might also retrieve deals, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_deals' or 'search_deals'. It mentions 'all or specific sources' but doesn't clarify if this is for trending content only or how it differs from other deal-retrieval tools, leaving usage context vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dealsC
Search for deals across multiple sources based on text query and filters
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query for deals (e.g., "gaming laptop", "iPhone", "kitchen appliances") | |
| category | No | Category filter (e.g., "electronics", "clothing", "home") | |
| minPrice | No | Minimum price filter | |
| maxPrice | No | Maximum price filter | |
| minRating | No | Minimum rating filter (0-5) | |
| store | No | Store/retailer filter (e.g., "amazon", "best buy") | |
| sortBy | No | Sort criteria | |
| sortOrder | No | Sort order | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (1-100) | |
| sources | No | Specific sources to search (e.g., ["slickdeals", "rapidapi"]) |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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 searching 'across multiple sources' which adds some context about scope, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., deal objects with what fields), how results are structured, or any limitations beyond what's implied by the parameters. The lack of behavioral context is particularly problematic given the tool's 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('deals'), and specifies the scope ('across multiple sources'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'compare_deals' or 'get_top_deals' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filter_deals' or 'get_top_deals'. The description mentions searching 'across multiple sources', but doesn't clarify if this is the primary search tool or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'search_deals' and 'filter_deals' could cause some confusion as both involve filtering criteria. The descriptions clarify that search is text-based with filters, while filter uses advanced criteria, but the boundary is slightly fuzzy. Other tools like 'compare_deals', 'get_deal_details', and 'get_top_deals' are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as 'compare_deals', 'filter_deals', 'get_available_sources', 'get_deal_details', 'get_top_deals', and 'search_deals'. The verbs are descriptive and uniform, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a bargain/deal-finding domain. Each tool serves a specific function without redundancy, covering key operations like searching, filtering, comparing, and retrieving details. This count is appropriate and manageable for the intended purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core deal-finding workflows, including discovery (search, filter, get top deals), comparison, and detailed viewing. A minor gap is the lack of tools for user-specific actions like saving deals or setting alerts, but the existing tools provide a solid foundation for agent interactions without dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server aggregating developer infrastructure deals, free tiers, and startup programs
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yoβ¦
Hosted MCP server for LLM cost estimation, model comparison, and budget-aware routing.
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for querying Turkish market prices, comparing products, and getting AI-powered shopping recommendations.105
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceAn MCP server that gives AI agents eyes on any e-commerce storefront, enabling scraping, analysis, and comparison through the Model Context Protocol.1463MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for finding, comparing, and ranking the cheapest real offers across eBay, Amazon, Craigslist, OfferUp, and Google Shopping, with tax estimation and exact-model filtering.6MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/karthiksivaramms/bargainer-mcp-client'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server