Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
mentu-ai

MetaMCP

Official
by mentu-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

MetaMCP

npm version Node.js License CI

MetaMCP 是一个安全、按需的网关，面向 MCP 服务器的长尾。它为 MCP 客户端提供三个稳定的工具：

  • mcp_discover 查找已配置的服务器、缓存的工具模式以及经过审查的 Methods，而无需启动每个子进程。

  • mcp_call 惰性调用一个明确命名的子工具。

  • mcp_run 执行一个有界、经过模式验证的声明式 Method。

MetaMCP 刻意不是每个直接 MCP 连接的替代品。将重要、频繁使用、紧凑或强认证的 MCP 保持直接连接。将不规律的长尾服务器放在 MetaMCP 后面，并将重复的多步骤仪式提升为 Methods。

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

何时使用哪条路径

路径

最佳适用场景

原因

直接 MCP

高频、紧凑、安全敏感或基础性服务器

保留类型化模式、原生认证和显式审批

mcp_discover + mcp_call

长尾或不规律的能力

保持客户端表面小巧，同时不隐藏汇编语言

mcp_run

重复的 Acquire → Normalize → Analyze 工作流

使有界行为可测试、可版本化并产生证据

不要仅仅为了减少工具数量而将计费、基础设施变更、身份或其他高后果服务器路由到 MetaMCP。正确的边界是操作性的，而非意识形态的。

Related MCP server: mcp-gateway

快速开始

需要 Node.js 20 或更高版本。

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

在配置客户端之前检查完整的模型可见表面：

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

检查器读取与 MCP tools/list 返回的相同定义，然后在加载配置、打开存储、启动子进程或绑定传输之前退出。--json 包含完整的输入模式，用于自动化审查和版本间差异比较。

创建 .mcp.json：

{
  "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"]
    }
  }
}

子服务器仅在显式刷新、调用或由 Method 使用时才启动。纯发现读取配置和缓存的模式；它不会启动所有子进程。

服务器名称是稳定的缓存标识，必须包含 1-128 个字母、数字、点、下划线或连字符；路径分隔符和类似遍历的名称会被拒绝。

安全的客户端设置

除非提供 --yes，否则 init 仅为预览。没有指定客户端时，它只考虑现有的客户端配置文件。

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

格式错误的 JSON 会被拒绝并保持原样。可以显式创建指定的客户端；MetaMCP 默认不会创建所有支持的客户端配置。

对于手动客户端配置，请使用绝对路径，以便网关不依赖客户端的工作目录：

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

@latest 便于评估。在受控环境中固定 @mentu/metamcp@1.0.0，以便升级是审慎且可审查的。

三个工具

Discover

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

发现仅搜索实时或缓存的模式。要从一个服务器的实时工具列表刷新它：

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

没有服务器的 refresh 会被拒绝，这样代理就不会意外地在整个配置中扇出。

Call

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

MetaMCP 在超时或传输失败后绝不会自动重放子调用。子进程可能在响应丢失之前已完成变更。后续 Method 只有在清单显式声明该步骤 idempotency: "safe" 时才可能重试。

运行 Method

将 JSON 清单放在 .metamcp/methods/ 中，或传递 --methods <directory>。下面的子服务器和工具名称仅为示例；请将它们绑定到您自己配置中经过审查的服务器：

{
  "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}"
  }
}

然后调用：

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

Methods 是声明式的，而非任意的 JavaScript。它们具有有界的步骤数、截止时间和输出大小；输入/输出 JSON 模式；显式的读/写效果；安全的插值；类型化缺口；以及逐步跟踪。除非网关操作员使用 --allow-writes 启动 MetaMCP，否则写入或混合效果的 Methods 会被禁用。

参见 Method Mode、清单模式 和 示例 Method。该设计概括了 Crawlio Method Mode 文档中描述的一致性层。

配置和密钥

env 和 HTTP headers 中的 ${NAME} 引用默认从主机环境解析。未解析的引用会导致启动失败；它永远不会作为字面占位符传递给子进程。

MetaMCP 不会将其环境复制到 stdio 子进程中。它只继承一个小的运行时允许列表（PATH、home/temp/locale 变量及平台等效项）、inheritEnv 中命名的变量，以及子进程 env 块中显式设置的值。嵌入者可以安装自定义的 SecretProvider 用于钥匙串或保险库。

发现默认是本地关键字搜索。要选择基于 Voyage 的语义搜索，请显式设置 METAMCP_VOYAGE_API_KEY；然后发现查询将发送到 Voyage，并且可选的本地 SQLite 向量索引将被启用。环境中的 ANTHROPIC_API_KEY 或 VOYAGE_API_KEY 变量永远不会激活网络调用。

远程子服务器使用 url、transportType、headers 和现有的 OAuth 字段：

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

HTTP 网关

HTTP 模式默认绑定到 127.0.0.1：

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

未认证的非回环绑定会以失败关闭。在暴露监听器之前，配置 OAuth 资源服务器验证或 METAMCP_HTTP_BEARER_TOKEN。带有 Origin 头的浏览器请求会被拒绝，除非使用 --allow-origin 或 METAMCP_ALLOWED_ORIGINS 提供确切来源。

MetaMCP 通过 stdio 和 Streamable HTTP 为传统 MCP 客户端和 2026-07-28 无状态请求信封提供服务。有关支持的边界和部署指南，请参见 Architecture。

证据

完成的 mcp_call 和 mcp_run 尝试被序列化到 .metamcp/ledger.jsonl。导出可移植的哈希链接捆绑包：

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

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

操作账本不是远程证明系统。导出可以检测捆绑包内的后续更改；它不能证明被入侵的主机记录了每个事件。

可选图库

该包仍然附带一个人工操作的服务器图库：

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

运行时绝不会响应 MCP 工具调用而安装包。安装仍然是显式的 CLI/用户操作。

从 0.x 升级

版本 1.0 有意移除了面向模型的配置、技能建议和 JavaScript 执行工具。它还更改了 HTTP 绑定、子环境继承、重试和 init。升级前请阅读 Migration to 1.0。

安全

子 MCP 服务器是受信任的本地或远程代码，具有自己的权限。MetaMCP 是策略和生命周期边界，而不是针对不受信任包的操作系统沙箱。审查命令、在适当的地方固定包、按子进程限定凭据范围，并将危险的直接服务器保留在客户端人工审批之后。

按 SECURITY.md 中的描述私下报告漏洞。

开发

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

npm publish 再次运行完整的 verify:release 门禁。该门禁从构建的 CLI 派生公共工具表面，并检查包、锁文件、变更日志和官方 MCP Registry 元数据是否存在版本漂移。

Apache-2.0 许可。由 Mentu AI 维护。

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