Bayarcash MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as create_payment_intent for initiating payments and get_fpx_banks for retrieving bank options. However, get_transaction and get_transaction_by_order could cause confusion as they both retrieve transaction details but by different identifiers, potentially leading to misselection if the agent is unclear about the available IDs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_payment_intent, get_fpx_banks, and list_transactions. This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand and navigate the tool set without ambiguity in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for payment processing, covering key operations like creating intents, retrieving details, and listing transactions. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count aligns with typical domain needs without being overly sparse or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for payment processing, including creation, status checks, and transaction retrieval. A minor gap exists in the lack of update or delete operations for payment intents or transactions, which might limit agent flexibility in handling errors or modifications, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.2/5 across 8 of 8 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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't specify what those details include, whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 with no unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the context of multiple transaction-related tools, more guidance is needed for proper tool selection.
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 the single parameter 'transaction_id'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to retrieve details, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), specifying it's by transaction ID. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_by_order' or 'list_transactions', which also retrieve transaction information through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transaction_by_order' or 'list_transactions'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist for its use.
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 states it 'gets' details, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the order number is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction details' includes, potential errors, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior. For a retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'order_number' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's the key for retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('transaction details'), specifying it's by order number. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_transaction' (which presumably uses a different identifier) and 'list_transactions' (which lists multiple). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'transaction details' includes, keeping it from a perfect 5.
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 'get_transaction' or 'list_transactions'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single transaction by order number, but it doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is a read operation ('Get list'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'available' means in practice (e.g., active vs. configured channels).
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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the payment system, what channels are (e.g., credit cards, bank transfers), or how results are structured. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'Optional portal key to filter channels', which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage for the single parameter. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's description of 'portal_key', such as explaining what a portal represents or how filtering affects results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of available payment channels'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_fpx_banks' or 'get_portals' which also retrieve lists of financial entities, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 'get_fpx_banks' or 'get_portals'. It mentions an optional filter parameter but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what the unfiltered list includes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'comprehensive payment history including all attempts', which adds some context about output behavior. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get payment intent details and status') and adds necessary detail without waste. Every part earns its place by clarifying the parameter source and return scope, making it appropriately sized and well-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?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at return content, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output structure. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, especially in the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'payment_intent_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting it's 'from create_payment_intent response' and giving examples like 'pi_pGwAaq, trx_z88ymJ', but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
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 ('payment intent details and status'), and it distinguishes the scope by mentioning 'by payment intent ID' and 'comprehensive payment history including all attempts'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'get_transaction_by_order', which might also retrieve payment-related data, so it falls short of 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. It mentions the parameter comes from 'create_payment_intent response', implying a prerequisite, but doesn't state when to choose this over siblings like 'get_transaction' or 'list_transactions'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, 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.
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. While it mentions filtering and pagination parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that both serve clear purposes. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides specific workflow guidance. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.
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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works in practice, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a list/query tool with rich filtering options, users need more context about the response format and behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with examples and enum mappings. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only mentions 'optional filters' and references payer_email filtering in a workflow context, which doesn't significantly enhance understanding of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List all transactions with optional filters', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' or 'get_transaction_by_order', which appear to retrieve individual transactions rather than lists.
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 provides some implied usage guidance by mentioning 'If you have payer_email from previous payment creation, ask user...', which suggests a workflow connection to 'create_payment_intent'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transaction' or provide clear 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 states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., bank names, codes, logos) or any behavioral context. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail on the return value would improve completeness.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent parameters.
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 list of') and resource ('FPX banks') with the purpose ('for online banking payments'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_payment_channels' by specifying FPX banks specifically rather than general payment channels. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for FPX-specific payments) or when to use other tools like 'get_payment_channels' for broader payment options. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get list' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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 parameterless read operation, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify what the returned list contains (portal IDs, names, capabilities) or any behavioral constraints. The simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely incomplete, but additional context would be helpful.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools when the description doesn't incorrectly mention parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of available payment portals'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_payment_channels' or 'get_fpx_banks', but the resource specificity (portals vs channels/banks) provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_payment_channels' and 'get_fpx_banks' that likely return related payment information, there's no indication of when this specific portal list is needed versus other payment data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'Create'), requires storing the returned ID for future status checks, and outlines a multi-step interactive workflow. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with detailed workflow steps. While all sentences are relevant, the structure could be more streamlined by separating core functionality from implementation details. It's appropriately sized but not optimally organized for quick scanning.
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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, workflow, and critical post-call action (storing the ID). However, it lacks details on error responses, return format beyond the ID, and any system constraints like rate limits or permissions.
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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only references parameters in the workflow context without providing additional meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 specific action ('Create a new payment intent for processing payments through Bayarcash') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on creation rather than retrieval (e.g., get_payment_intent, list_transactions). It explicitly mentions the resource (payment intent) and the platform (Bayarcash).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit workflow steps for when to use alternative tools (list_transactions, get_portals, get_payment_channels) when parameters are missing. It specifies conditions for invoking siblings and includes user interaction prompts, making it clear when to use this tool versus others.
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:

[![bayarcash-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khairulimran-97/bayarcash-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khairulimran-97/bayarcash-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bayarcash-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khairulimran-97/bayarcash-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/khairulimran-97/bayarcash-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/khairulimran-97/bayarcash-mcp-server'

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