Map Traveler MCP

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_traveler_info and get_setting, and get_traveler_location and get_traveler_view_info share similar location-related functions. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent might occasionally misselect between these pairs.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout, such as get_traveler_info and set_traveler_info. The only minor deviation is 'tips', which is a noun rather than a verb_noun pattern, but it fits the overall style and does not break consistency severely.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a travel or mapping server. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in managing traveler settings, location, and journey control, making the set neither too sparse nor overloaded.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core operations like getting/setting traveler info, location, and journey control, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for updating journey details mid-travel or handling multiple travelers, which could limit agent workflows in a travel domain.
Average 2.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on October 16, 2025
- 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

Behavior1/5
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. However, it offers no information about traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what the return format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get current setting'), which could be seen as efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized, failing to provide necessary context. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, making it borderline between conciseness and insufficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'setting' refers to, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into the context of sibling tools (e.g., traveler-related operations). For a tool with no structured data support, the description fails to provide essential context.
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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter aspect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get current setting' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of setting (e.g., system, user, application) or which resource it retrieves, nor does it distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_traveler_info' or 'get_traveler_location'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to decide between this tool and sibling tools like 'get_traveler_info' or 'set_traveler_info'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Stop the traveler's journey' implies a mutation or state change, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what side effects occur (e.g., does it cancel ongoing processes?), or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters system state.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately sized—it lacks necessary context for a mutation tool, so its brevity doesn't earn full credit for being 'front-loaded' with helpful 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 likely performs a mutation (stopping a journey) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stopping' entails, what happens post-execution, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outcomes.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop the traveler's journey' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'stop_traveler_journey' and title 'Stop the journey' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'journey' means in this context or what resources are affected, though it does include the verb 'stop' and resource 'traveler's journey' which provides minimal differentiation from siblings like 'start_traveler_journey'.
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 prerequisites (e.g., that a journey must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'start_traveler_journey', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information beyond the tool's name.
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 but only mentions what data is retrieved without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or response format. It lacks details on whether this is a read-only operation or has other constraints.
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 brief and front-loaded, using a single sentence with examples to convey the purpose efficiently. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's scope or limitations.
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 1 undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It provides basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavior, and output, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'settings' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameter undocumented and unclear in usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves a traveler's settings with examples (name, language, personality), which clarifies the purpose beyond the name. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_setting' or 'get_traveler_view_info', making it somewhat vague in comparison.
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 such as 'get_setting' or 'get_traveler_view_info'. The description only lists examples of what it retrieves, offering no context for selection among siblings.
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 implies a mutation operation ('set'), but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, failing to address key behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action ('set a traveler's setting'), followed by illustrative examples. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the use of 'etc.' and minor grammatical issues ('traveler's name, the language traveler speak') slightly reduce clarity. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or response format, and while the parameter is documented in the schema, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context needed for safe and 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'settings' documented as 'traveler's setting. traveler's name, the language traveler speak, etc.' The description adds examples ('traveler's name, the language traveler speak, Personality and speaking habits, etc.') that align with the schema but don't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's already in the schema. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('set a traveler's setting') and provides examples ('traveler's name, the language traveler speak, Personality and speaking habits'), which clarifies the resource and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_traveler_info' or 'get_setting', and the phrasing is somewhat vague with 'etc.' leaving some ambiguity about the full range of settings.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_traveler_info' or 'get_setting'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and examples alone.
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 states the action ('Start') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens if a journey is already in progress. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely changes state.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'destination' means, how it's determined, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely initiates a state change, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here since there are none to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Start') and resource ('traveler's journey to destination'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'stop_traveler_journey' beyond the verb, and 'destination' is vague without specifying what it refers to or how it's determined.
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 'stop_traveler_journey' or other sibling tools. The description implies it's for initiating travel, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage.
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 tool 'Inform you' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how recommendations are generated, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Inform you of recommended actions'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple informational tool with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recommended actions' entail, how they're determined, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that might provide actionable advice, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the empty schema and the lack of parameters is handled adequately by the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as informing about recommended actions for a device, which is clear but vague. It uses a specific verb ('Inform') and resource ('recommended actions for your device'), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_setting' or 'get_traveler_info' that might also provide device-related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what types of recommendations or actions are involved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_setting' or 'get_traveler_info' that might retrieve device information, there's no indication of when 'tips' is appropriate—e.g., for proactive advice versus status queries. Usage is implied as informational but without explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 describes what information is retrieved but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool that accesses location and facility data, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. However, the phrase 'view snapshot' is ambiguous and could be clarified, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.
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 moderate complexity (retrieving location and facility data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format, which are important for effective use by an AI agent.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('includeNearbyFacilities' and 'includePhoto'). The description mentions 'information on nearby facilities' and 'view snapshot', which align with the parameters but don't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the address of the current traveler's location and information on nearby facilities, view snapshot'. This specifies the verb ('Get') and resources (address, nearby facilities, view snapshot). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_traveler_location' or 'get_traveler_info', which appear related to traveler data.
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 sibling tools or clarify the context for selecting this specific tool over others like 'get_traveler_location' or 'get_traveler_info', leaving usage ambiguous.
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 what the tool does but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether the location is real-time or cached, or what happens if no traveler exists. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves sensitive location data.
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 fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, 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 location data (potentially sensitive) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., address format, coordinates), error conditions, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
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%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could briefly note the lack of inputs for clarity. A baseline of 4 is given as it meets the requirement for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('address of the current traveler's location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_traveler_info' or 'get_traveler_view_info', which might also provide location-related information, so it doesn't achieve 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 'get_traveler_info' or 'get_traveler_view_info'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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:

[![map-traveler-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mfukushim/map-traveler-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mfukushim/map-traveler-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![map-traveler-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mfukushim/map-traveler-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mfukushim/map-traveler-mcp)

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/mfukushim/map-traveler-mcp'

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