MCP Salesforce Lite

by luvl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, create_record, get_record, update_record, and delete_record cover distinct CRUD operations, while describe_object_definition, list_avail_objects, search_records, and soql_query handle metadata, listing, searching, and querying respectively. There is no overlap that would cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_record, delete_record, and describe_object_definition. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and use the tools without confusion from mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for Salesforce operations. Each tool earns its place by covering essential functions like CRUD, metadata access, listing, searching, and querying, without being overly sparse or bloated. This count is ideal for the domain's typical needs.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete coverage for core Salesforce interactions. It includes full CRUD operations (create, get, update, delete), metadata handling (describe_object_definition, list_avail_objects), and flexible data access (search_records, soql_query). There are no obvious gaps that would hinder agent workflows in this domain.
Average 2.9/5 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 is passing
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 full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps 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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context, which are critical for safe and effective use in a Salesforce environment.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of 'object_type' or 'record_data' usage, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new Salesforce record'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_record' or specify what constitutes a 'record' in Salesforce context, 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_record' or 'delete_record', nor does it mention prerequisites such as object type availability or permissions. The description lacks context for tool selection.
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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). It also doesn't mention error conditions or what happens on success.
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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what the tool returns (success confirmation, error details), whether deletion affects related records, or security requirements, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (object_type and record_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but no extra value.
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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a Salesforce record'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_record' or 'update_record' in terms of what makes deletion unique versus other record operations.
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 'update_record' or 'get_record'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing record ID), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., for soft deletion scenarios).
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 mentions 'pagination', which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to cover other critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 metadata and field information') and includes a key behavioral trait ('with pagination') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.
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 Salesforce object description tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or how pagination works in practice. Without annotations or an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for effective tool use, leaving significant gaps in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the description.
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 the resource 'metadata and field information for a Salesforce object', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_avail_objects', which might list objects rather than describe them, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_avail_objects' or 'get_record'. It mentions pagination, which hints at usage for large datasets, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'limit and pagination', which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval, but it doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (especially without an output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation siblings.
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 ('Retrieve a specific Salesforce record by ID') and adds a concise note on 'limit and pagination'. There is no wasted verbiage, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and siblings include mutations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and how it fits into the broader toolset (e.g., vs. 'search_records'). Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by implying 'limit and pagination' relate to the 'limit' parameter, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how pagination works with a single 'record_id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific Salesforce record by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'soql_query', which might also retrieve records, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 'search_records' or 'soql_query' from the sibling list. It mentions 'limit and pagination' but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred method for single-record lookups 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.
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 pagination and a max limit (10-20 objects), which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the constraints (e.g., 'List available Salesforce objects. Supports pagination with a limit of 10-20 objects max.'), but it's still very concise with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing Salesforce objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, authentication needs, and how it differs from siblings. The pagination hint is helpful but insufficient for a tool with rich contextual requirements.
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 fully documents all three parameters (limit, offset, custom_only). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'custom_only' interacts with Salesforce object types. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available Salesforce objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'describe_object_definition' or 'search_records' that might also provide object information, 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 'describe_object_definition' or 'search_records' from the sibling list. It mentions pagination and limits but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Search for') but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the search encompasses (e.g., fields searched). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in Salesforce environments.
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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 the complexity of searching across multiple Salesforce objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, search scope limitations, or behavioral traits like authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a cross-object search scope, which is already suggested by the schema's 'object_types' array. 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.
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 for') and resource ('records across multiple Salesforce objects'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'soql_query' or 'get_record', which might offer alternative search approaches, preventing 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. With siblings like 'soql_query' (likely for structured queries) and 'get_record' (likely for single-record retrieval), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites for this multi-object search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Execute') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, query result limitations, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent 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 the complexity of executing SOQL queries against Salesforce (which involves syntax, permissions, result handling, etc.), no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper usage.
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 doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
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 ('Execute') and target ('a SOQL query against Salesforce'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'get_record' which might also query Salesforce data, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.
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. With siblings like 'search_records', 'get_record', and 'list_avail_objects' that likely handle Salesforce data queries, the description offers no context about when SOQL queries are preferred over these other methods, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error handling. For a mutation 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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of updating Salesforce records, more contextual information is needed.
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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score 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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Salesforce record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_record' beyond the 'existing' qualifier, which is insufficient for full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_record' or 'delete_record'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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:

[![mcp-salesforce-lite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luvl/mcp-salesforce-lite/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luvl/mcp-salesforce-lite)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-salesforce-lite MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luvl/mcp-salesforce-lite/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/luvl/mcp-salesforce-lite)

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/luvl/mcp-salesforce-lite'

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