Codecks MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Each tool targets a specific resource (card, deck, project, space) and action (create, list, get, update, archive, move, etc.), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool. For example, codecks_archive_card and codecks_unarchive_card are complementary but distinct operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, all using snake_case with the prefix 'codecks_' for clarity. The naming convention is predictable: codecks_<action>_<resource>, such as codecks_create_card, codecks_list_decks, and codecks_update_deck, which enhances readability and usability.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing a project management system like Codecks, covering cards, decks, projects, and spaces comprehensively. Each tool earns its place by providing necessary CRUD and lifecycle operations without being excessive, making it suitable for agent workflows.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface offers complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for the domain of project management in Codecks. It includes creation, listing, updating, and deletion (where applicable) for all resources (cards, decks, projects, spaces), along with specific operations like archiving, moving, and searching, leaving no obvious gaps for agent interactions.
Average 3.2/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool marks cards as complete or incomplete, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the task, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'complete' means in context (e.g., workflow status), potential side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('cardId' and 'complete'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 action ('Mark a card as complete or incomplete') with a specific verb and resource ('card'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'codecks_update_card' or 'codecks_archive_card', which might also modify card statuses, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codecks_update_card' (which might handle more general updates) or 'codecks_archive_card' (which deals with archiving). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 states the tool creates a project but doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., default settings, permissions, or response format), whether it's idempotent, or any error conditions, 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, earning full marks for 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 the tool is a mutation (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or dependencies, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively in this context.
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 the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The project name'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., naming constraints or examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 target resource ('new project in the Codecks organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'codecks_create_card' or 'codecks_create_deck' beyond specifying 'project' as the resource type, missing explicit 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'codecks_list_projects' or other creation tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the action is creation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the response format. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and resource context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 critical context like error handling, return values, or behavioral traits (e.g., effects on existing data), which are essential for proper tool invocation.
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 both parameters ('name' and 'project'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Create a new space') and resource ('in a project'), specifying that spaces are 'containers for organizing decks.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_create_project' or 'codecks_create_deck' by focusing on spaces, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the resource type.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), when not to use it (e.g., if a space already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'codecks_list_spaces' for checking existing spaces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or mention any side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., card details, status), error handling, or how it fits into workflows with siblings like 'codecks_update_card'. For a read operation in a system with multiple card-related tools, more context is needed to ensure proper integration.
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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by its ID', reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format, examples, or where to obtain it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific card by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_list_cards' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what information is retrieved about the card, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'codecks_search_cards' for finding cards or 'codecks_list_cards' for browsing. There's also no indication of prerequisites, such as needing the card ID from another operation.
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 tool lists all spaces, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., archived spaces). This is a significant gap for a list operation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful definition of spaces. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly noting it's a read-only operation).
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 (list operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list of space objects), error cases, or how results are ordered, which are critical for a list tool without structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter 'project' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting 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 action ('List all spaces') and resource ('in a project'), and defines what spaces are ('containers for organizing decks'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_list_projects' or 'codecks_list_decks', but the resource specificity provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codecks_list_projects' or 'codecks_list_decks'. The description implies usage for listing spaces within a project but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a move operation but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to card data during the move, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in an AI agent context.
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 both parameters ('cardId' and 'deckId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it 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 action ('Move') and resource ('a card'), specifying the destination ('to a different deck'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_card' or 'archive_card' by focusing on relocation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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_card' (which might also move cards) or 'archive_card' (which changes card status). The description implies usage for moving cards between decks but offers no context about prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Rename') but doesn't explain if this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's 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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly in a project management context.
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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'spaceId' and 'project' or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('a space in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_update_deck' or 'codecks_update_card' which might also rename resources, leaving room for ambiguity.
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, such as needing the space ID from 'codecks_list_spaces', or clarify if it's for spaces only versus other resources like decks or cards, which could be confusing given sibling tools like 'codecks_update_deck'.
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 mentions searching but doesn't describe key behaviors such as search algorithm details (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity), pagination or result limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. This is inadequate for a search 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.
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 functionality ('search cards by title or content within a project') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of cards, metadata), how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. For a search tool with no structured output, this leaves significant gaps for 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 ('query' and 'project'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'project' scopes the search, which is already covered. 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 with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('cards'), and specifies the search scope ('by title or content within a project'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_list_cards', which might list cards without searching, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
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 like 'codecks_list_cards' for unfiltered listing or 'codecks_get_card' for retrieving a specific card, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('cardId' and 'content') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it 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 action ('Update') and target resource ('the content of an existing card'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_rename_space' or 'codecks_update_deck', which also perform updates on different resources.
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., needing an existing card ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'codecks_complete_card' or 'codecks_move_card' for other card modifications.
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 renames a deck, implying a mutation, but does not describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Rename a deck') and avoids unnecessary details, 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 complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context, and output expectations, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation.
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 both parameters (deckId and title) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the purpose of renaming, but does not provide additional context like format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Rename') and resource ('a deck'), specifying the action of updating its title. It distinguishes from siblings like codecks_create_deck (creation) and codecks_list_decks (listing), but does not explicitly differentiate from codecks_update_card, which updates cards rather than decks.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing deck), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or deleting decks), or direct comparisons to siblings like codecks_rename_space (for spaces) or codecks_update_card (for cards).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the creation action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens if the project/space doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a mutation 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.
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 ('Create a new deck in a project') and adds optional context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'deck' represents in this context, what happens on success/failure, or return values. Given the mutation nature and lack of structured data, more context 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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 a new deck') and resource ('in a project'), with additional context about optional space placement. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_create_project' and 'codecks_create_space' by focusing on decks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'codecks_update_deck'.
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 creating decks within projects, with optional space specification. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'codecks_update_deck' for modifications or 'codecks_list_decks' for viewing. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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 mentions the tool returns 'derivedStatus for each card', adding some context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('List all cards'), then adds filtering options and return details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format (beyond 'derivedStatus'), error cases, or behavioral traits. For a list tool with filtering, more completeness would be beneficial.
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 adds value by listing the optional filters (deck, project, status) and mentioning that 'project' overrides 'CODECKS_DEFAULT_PROJECT'. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents these parameters well. The description provides marginal extra context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all cards from Codecks' with optional filtering. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('cards from Codecks'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'codecks_search_cards' or 'codecks_get_card', 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning optional filters (deck, project, status), suggesting when to use it for filtered listings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'codecks_search_cards' or 'codecks_get_card', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves room for ambiguity in 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 but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if archiving is reversible (though 'codecks_unarchive_card' exists as a sibling), permission requirements, side effects on related data, or error conditions, which are critical 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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's use case without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and implied usage, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or response format, which are important given the tool's complexity and lack of structured data.
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 1 parameter with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It appropriately focuses on tool purpose rather than repeating schema information, earning a baseline score since no parameter semantics are required beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('archive') and resource ('a card'), specifying it's for cards that are done and no longer needed in active view. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_complete_card' by focusing on archiving rather than completion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'codecks_unarchive_card' or 'codecks_delete_space' for permanent removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance ('for cards that are done and no longer needed in active view'), suggesting when to use it based on card status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. deleting or completing) or name alternatives like 'codecks_unarchive_card' for reversal, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic creation action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate card names, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 and immediately provides parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, potential error conditions, or how this tool differs behaviorally from similar siblings like update_card. The schema handles parameter documentation, but the description lacks crucial operational context.
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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the either/or relationship between deckId and deckName and the optional project parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
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 a new card') and target resource ('in a deck'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_deck or create_project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_card or move_card in terms of creation versus modification operations.
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 provides clear context for parameter usage ('Specify either deckId or deckName'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_card for existing cards or move_card for relocation. It mentions optional project usage but doesn't compare with other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the constraint about the default space, it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, error conditions, or what happens to contained cards/decks. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a critical constraint. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.
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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means operationally (permanent removal vs soft delete), what happens to child resources, authentication requirements, or return values. The constraint about space ID 1 is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.
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 both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a space') and resource ('from a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like codecks_rename_space or codecks_create_space. It provides precise scope by mentioning the constraint about the default space (ID 1).
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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Cannot delete the default space (ID 1)'), providing clear exclusion criteria. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like codecks_archive_card for similar purposes or prerequisites for deletion.
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 mentions the default project behavior but does not cover other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and default behavior without any wasted words, making it highly efficient.
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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, output format) that would be needed for full contextual understanding, especially without annotations to fill those gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter 'project' with its description. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default behavior but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all decks in a project', specifying the scope with 'with card counts and space info'. It distinguishes from siblings like codecks_list_cards (lists cards) and codecks_list_projects (lists projects) by focusing on decks.
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 provides clear context for when to use it: 'List all decks in a project' and specifies default behavior ('Uses default project if not specified'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using codecks_list_cards for card-level details instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the action (unarchive) and purpose (undo accidental archive), but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, or what 'visible again' entails (e.g., reappearance in lists). It adds some context but is incomplete for behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps in transparency.
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, with 'cardId' clearly documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('unarchive a card') and the outcome ('making it visible again'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'codecks_archive_card' and 'codecks_get_card'. It precisely identifies the verb (unarchive) and resource (card).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('undo an accidental archive'), providing clear context for its application. This directly addresses the alternative scenario where archiving might have been unintended, guiding the agent effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. However, it adds value by explaining the output's utility for configuration.
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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance, making it front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a list operation. It explains what it does and why to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning output format or limitations.
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 parameter details are needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all Codecks projects with their IDs'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like codecks_list_cards and codecks_list_decks by specifying projects, not cards or decks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find a project ID for configuration.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like codecks_create_project or codecks_list_cards, which serve different purposes.
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:

[![Codecks-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/microkorg/Codecks-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/microkorg/Codecks-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Codecks-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/microkorg/Codecks-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/microkorg/Codecks-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/microkorg/Codecks-MCP'

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