Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
mentu-ai

MetaMCP

Official
by mentu-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

MetaMCP

npm version Node.js License CI

MetaMCP は、MCP サーバーのロングテール向けの、安全でオンデマンドなゲートウェイです。MCP クライアントに 3 つの安定したツールを提供します。

  • mcp_discover は、すべての子プロセスを起動せずに、設定済みサーバー、キャッシュされたツールスキーマ、レビュー済みメソッドを検索します。

  • mcp_call は、明示的に名前を指定した 1 つの子ツールを遅延呼び出しします。

  • mcp_run は、境界が定められ、スキーマ検証された宣言型メソッドを実行します。

MetaMCP は、すべての直接 MCP 接続を置き換えることを意図していません。重要で頻繁に使用される、コンパクトな、または強力に認証された MCP は直接接続したままにしてください。不規則なロングテールサーバーは MetaMCP の背後に置き、繰り返し行われる多段階の儀式はメソッドに昇格させてください。

                               ┌─ direct: GitHub / Codex Apps / core runtime
MCP client ────────────────────┤
                               └─ MetaMCP (3 tools)
                                    ├─ discover cached capabilities
                                    ├─ call one lazy child
                                    └─ run reviewed Methods

どのパスをいつ使うか

パス

最適な用途

理由

直接 MCP

高頻度、コンパクト、セキュリティ重視、または基盤となるサーバー

型付きスキーマ、ネイティブ認証、明示的な承認を保持

mcp_discover + mcp_call

ロングテールまたは不規則な機能

アセンブリ言語を隠さずにクライアントの表面を小さく保つ

mcp_run

繰り返される Acquire → Normalize → Analyze ワークフロー

境界のある動作をテスト可能、バージョン管理可能、証跡生成可能にする

ツール数を減らすためだけに、請求、インフラストラクチャの変更、ID、またはその他の重大な影響を持つサーバーを MetaMCP 経由でルーティングしないでください。適切な境界は運用上のものであり、イデオロギー的なものではありません。

Related MCP server: mcp-gateway

クイックスタート

Node.js 20 以降が必要です。

npx @mentu/metamcp@latest --config .mcp.json

クライアントを設定する前に、モデルに公開される完全なサーフェスを検査します。

npx @mentu/metamcp@latest tools
npx @mentu/metamcp@latest tools --json

インスペクタは、MCP tools/list が返すのと同じ定義を読み取り、設定の読み込み、ストレージのオープン、子プロセスの起動、トランスポートのバインドを行う前に終了します。--json には、自動レビューとバージョン間の差分のための完全な入力スキーマが含まれます。

.mcp.json を作成します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "filesystem": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem@2026.7.10", "/path/to/allowed/files"]
    },
    "internal-api": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["./servers/internal-api.js"],
      "env": { "API_TOKEN": "${INTERNAL_API_TOKEN}" },
      "inheritEnv": ["HTTP_PROXY"]
    }
  }
}

子サーバーは、明示的にリフレッシュ、呼び出し、またはメソッドで使用された場合にのみ起動します。プレーンなディスカバリは設定とキャッシュされたスキーマを読み取ります。すべての子プロセスを起動することはありません。

サーバー名は安定したキャッシュ ID であり、1〜128 文字の英字、数字、ドット、アンダースコア、またはハイフンを含む必要があります。パス区切り文字やトラバーサルに似た名前は拒否されます。

安全なクライアント設定

init は、--yes が指定されない限りプレビューのみです。名前付きクライアントがない場合、既存のクライアント設定ファイルのみを考慮します。

metamcp init                         # preview, no writes
metamcp init --client Codex          # preview one client
metamcp init --client Codex --yes    # apply atomically and write a .bak

不正な JSON は拒否され、そのまま残されます。名前付きクライアントは明示的に作成できます。MetaMCP はデフォルトでサポートされているすべてのクライアント設定を作成することはありません。

手動のクライアント設定では、ゲートウェイがクライアントの作業ディレクトリに依存しないように、絶対パスを使用します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "metamcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@mentu/metamcp@latest",
        "--config",
        "/absolute/path/to/.mcp.json"
      ]
    }
  }
}

@latest は評価に便利です。管理された環境では @mentu/metamcp@1.0.0 を固定して、アップグレードを意図的かつレビュー可能にします。

3 つのツール

Discover

{ "query": "capture screenshot", "kind": "tool" }

ディスカバリは、ライブまたはキャッシュされたスキーマのみを検索します。1 つのサーバーをライブツールリストからリフレッシュするには:

{ "server": "browser", "refresh": true }

サーバーなしの refresh は拒否されるため、エージェントが誤って設定全体にファンアウトすることはありません。

Call

{
  "server": "browser",
  "tool": "capture_page",
  "args": { "url": "https://example.com" },
  "timeoutMs": 60000
}

MetaMCP は、タイムアウトまたはトランスポート障害の後に子呼び出しを自動的に再試行することはありません。子プロセスは、応答が失われる前にミューテーションを完了している可能性があります。後のメソッドは、そのマニフェストがそのステップの idempotency: "safe" を明示的に宣言している場合にのみ再試行できます。

メソッドを実行する

JSON マニフェストを .metamcp/methods/ に置くか、--methods <directory> を渡します。以下の子サーバーとツール名は例です。独自の設定でレビュー済みサーバーにバインドしてください。

{
  "apiVersion": "metamcp.io/v1alpha1",
  "kind": "Method",
  "metadata": {
    "name": "content.acquire-and-normalize",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "description": "Acquire content and normalize it into a stable record"
  },
  "spec": {
    "effects": "read",
    "inputSchema": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": { "url": { "type": "string" } },
      "required": ["url"],
      "additionalProperties": false
    },
    "steps": [
      {
        "id": "acquire",
        "server": "fetch",
        "tool": "fetch",
        "args": { "url": "${input.url}" }
      },
      {
        "id": "normalize",
        "server": "content",
        "tool": "normalize",
        "dependsOn": ["acquire"],
        "args": { "document": "${steps.acquire.structuredContent}" }
      }
    ],
    "output": "${steps.normalize.structuredContent}"
  }
}

次に呼び出します。

{ "method": "content.acquire-and-normalize", "input": { "url": "https://example.com" } }

メソッドは任意の JavaScript ではなく宣言型です。ステップ数、期限、出力サイズに境界があり、入力/出力 JSON スキーマ、明示的な読み取り/書き込み効果、安全な補間、型付きギャップ、ステップごとのトレースがあります。書き込みまたは混合効果メソッドは、ゲートウェイオペレーターが --allow-writes を指定して MetaMCP を起動しない限り無効です。

Method Mode、マニフェストスキーマ、メソッドの例 を参照してください。この設計は、Crawlio Method Mode によって文書化された一貫性レイヤーを一般化したものです。

設定とシークレット

env と HTTP headers 内の ${NAME} 参照は、デフォルトでホスト環境から解決されます。未解決の参照は起動時に失敗します。リテラルのプレースホルダーとして子プロセスに渡されることはありません。

MetaMCP は、自身の環境を stdio 子プロセスにコピーしません。小さなランタイム許可リスト（PATH、ホーム/一時/ロケール変数、およびプラットフォーム相当物）、inheritEnv で指定された変数、および子の env ブロックで明示的に設定された値のみを継承します。埋め込み側は、キーチェーンまたはボールト用のカスタム SecretProvider をインストールできます。

ディスカバリはデフォルトでローカルキーワード検索です。Voyage ベースのセマンティック検索をオプトインするには、METAMCP_VOYAGE_API_KEY を明示的に設定します。ディスカバリクエリは Voyage に送信され、オプションのローカル SQLite ベクトルインデックスが有効になります。環境内の ANTHROPIC_API_KEY または VOYAGE_API_KEY 変数がネットワーク呼び出しをアクティブにすることはありません。

リモート子サーバーは、url、transportType、headers、および既存の OAuth フィールドを使用します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "remote": {
      "url": "https://mcp.example.com/mcp",
      "transportType": "http",
      "headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer ${REMOTE_TOKEN}" }
    }
  }
}

HTTP ゲートウェイ

HTTP モードはデフォルトで 127.0.0.1 にバインドします。

metamcp --transport http --port 8080 --config .mcp.json

認証されていない非ループバックバインドは、フェイルクローズします。リスナーを公開する前に、OAuth リソースサーバー検証または METAMCP_HTTP_BEARER_TOKEN を設定してください。Origin ヘッダーを持つブラウザリクエストは、--allow-origin または METAMCP_ALLOWED_ORIGINS で正確なオリジンが指定されない限り拒否されます。

MetaMCP は、レガシー MCP クライアントと 2026-07-28 ステートレスリクエストエンベロープを stdio および Streamable HTTP で提供します。サポートされている境界とデプロイメントガイダンスについては、Architecture を参照してください。

証跡

完了した mcp_call および mcp_run の試行は、.metamcp/ledger.jsonl にシリアル化されます。ポータブルなハッシュリンクバンドルをエクスポートします。

metamcp export-evidence \
  --ledger .metamcp/ledger.jsonl \
  --out .metamcp/evidence-bundle.json

metamcp export-evidence --out .metamcp/evidence-bundle.json --verify

運用台帳はリモートアテステーションシステムではありません。エクスポートはバンドル内の後続の変更を検出します。侵害されたホストがすべてのイベントを記録したことを証明するものではありません。

オプションのギャラリー

パッケージには、人間が操作するサーバーギャラリーがまだ同梱されています。

metamcp add --list
metamcp add playwright sentry --config .mcp.json

ランタイムは、MCP ツール呼び出しに応答してパッケージをインストールすることはありません。インストールは明示的な CLI/ユーザーアクションのままです。

0.x からのアップグレード

バージョン 1.0 では、モデル向けのプロビジョニング、スキルアドバイス、JavaScript 実行ツールが意図的に削除されています。また、HTTP バインディング、子環境の継承、再試行、init も変更されています。アップグレードする前に Migration to 1.0 をお読みください。

セキュリティ

子 MCP サーバーは、独自の権限を持つ信頼されたローカルまたはリモートコードです。MetaMCP はポリシーとライフサイクルの境界であり、信頼されていないパッケージ用の OS サンドボックスではありません。コマンドをレビューし、必要に応じてパッケージを固定し、子ごとに資格情報をスコープし、危険な直接サーバーはクライアント側の人間による承認の背後に置いてください。

脆弱性は SECURITY.md に記載されているように非公開で報告してください。

開発

npm ci
npm run typecheck
npm test
./scripts/smoke-test.sh
npm run check:release
npm pack --dry-run

npm publish は、完全な verify:release ゲートを再度実行します。ゲートは、ビルドされた CLI から公開ツールサーフェスを導出し、パッケージ、ロックファイル、チェンジログ、および公式 MCP レジストリメタデータのバージョンずれをチェックします。

Apache-2.0 ライセンス。 Mentu AI によって保守されています。

Available Tools

6 tools
mcp_callB

Forward a tool call to a specific child MCP server. Retries once on crash.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoArguments to pass to the tool
toolYesTool name to call
serverYesTarget server name

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses retry behavior once on crash, which is useful. But with no annotations, the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The retry detail is positive but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste. The main action and key behavior (retry) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema and subjective complexity medium, the description omits important context: what happens if the server is unreachable, what the return value is, and any rate limits or error handling details. Only minimal forwarding and retry are covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 forwards a tool call to a child MCP server and retries on crash. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mcp_execute or mcp_discover.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

mcp_discoverA

Search tool catalogs across all child MCP servers + list server status. If no query, returns server list with status and tool counts.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch query for tools
serverNoFilter to a specific server

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 describes the tool as performing read operations (search and list), but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers both modes of the tool (search and list server status) and explains what happens when no query is provided. No output schema is given, but the description implies the return structure sufficiently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds some context by explaining the no-query behavior, but does not substantially enhance the parameter definitions beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches tool catalogs across child MCP servers and lists server status. It uses the verb 'discover' and distinguishes from siblings like mcp_call (which likely calls a tool) and mcp_skill_discover (which discovers skills).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains two usage modes: with a query (search) and without a query (list server status). It provides context on when to use each, though it does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

mcp_executeA

Code-mode execution in V8 sandbox. Access provisioned servers via servers.<name>.call(tool, args). Supports async/await, sleep(ms), console.log.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCode to execute

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description shoulders full burden. It discloses sandboxing, async/await, sleep, and server access, but omits details like error handling, return value format, persistence, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Lacks critical details for a code execution tool: what is returned (execution result), restrictions (network, filesystem), lifecycle (one-shot), and output capture. Relies heavily on inferred context from sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema only describes 'code' as 'Code to execute'. Description adds significant context: V8 sandbox, ability to use async/await, sleep, console.log, and call provisioned servers. This goes beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it executes code in a V8 sandbox, with explicit mention of accessing provisioned servers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_call which directly call server tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for running arbitrary JavaScript with sandbox access, and contrasts with direct server calls by showing servers.<name>.call syntax. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

mcp_provisionB

Intent-based provisioning. Describe what you need, MetaMCP resolves and provisions the right server.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentYesWhat capability you need
contextNoAdditional context for resolution
autoProvisionNoAuto-provision if trusted (default: false)

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must fully explain behavior. It mentions intent-based provisioning but lacks details on side effects (e.g., resource creation, persistence), permissions required, or potential destructive actions.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with core purpose. However, for a provisioning tool, it may be too terse, lacking necessary detail.

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?

With only 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief for a provisioning action. It does not describe return values, success indicators, or consequences, leaving the agent to infer too much.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; no examples or clarifications on intent format.

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?

Description clearly states it is for provisioning servers based on intent ('Describe what you need, MetaMCP resolves and provisions the right server'). Distinct from siblings like mcp_discover or mcp_call which focus on discovery or execution.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Usage is implied: for provisioning when you know the desired capability. Lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

mcp_skill_adviseA

Pre-flight readiness check for a skill. Returns MCP server availability and recommendations.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillYesSkill name to check

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool returns 'MCP server availability and recommendations', which is useful. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., skill not found), permissions needed, or potential side effects.

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 concise sentence that effectively conveys the purpose and output without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It explains the return value, but could be more complete by mentioning that it is non-destructive or clarifying what 'recommendations' entails.

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% for the single parameter 'skill'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 it is a 'Pre-flight readiness check for a skill', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mcp_skill_discover (discovery) and mcp_call (execution) by focusing on readiness checking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use before calling or executing a skill, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned despite having several sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

mcp_skill_discoverA

Search Claude Code skills with MCP readiness status. Returns skills matching query with their required MCP servers and availability.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query for skills
domainNoFilter by domain (e.g. browser_automation, monitoring)

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 and discloses that results include required MCP servers and availability—key behavioral traits. It does not mention auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only search 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 that immediately conveys the core purpose and key output details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description provides reasonable completeness by listing what is returned (skills, required servers, availability). It could be improved by noting pagination or result limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions for 'query' and 'domain' are adequate. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches Claude Code skills, specifies the 'MCP readiness status' criterion, and indicates the return includes required MCP servers and availability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_skill_advise and mcp_discover.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when searching for skills with MCP readiness, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other search/discovery tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 6 tool updatesv0.5.0
    • First observedmcp_call
    • First observedmcp_discover
    • First observedmcp_execute
    • First observedmcp_provision
    • First observedmcp_skill_advise
    • First observedmcp_skill_discover
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: discovery of servers/tools, provisioning, forwarding tool calls, code execution, skill discovery, and skill readiness checking. No two tools have overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the 'mcp_<verb>' pattern, with skill-specific tools adding 'skill_' for clarity. The naming is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a meta-server. It covers the essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers discovery, provisioning, calling, execution, and skill support. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit unprovisioning or server management), but core agent workflows are well-supported.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
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

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-gateway

    jj13jp
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Aggregates multiple child MCP servers into a single MCP server endpoint, enabling clients to use various tools (e.g., filesystem, Brave Search) through one interface.
    19
    -

  • MCP Server Proxy

    hr98w
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Aggregates multiple MCP servers into a single endpoint, enabling LLM clients to access tools, resources, and prompts from various backends through one connection.
    18
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

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/mentu-ai/metamcp'

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