Douban MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting different Douban resources (books, movies/TVs, groups), but 'search-book' and 'search-movie' could be confused as both handle search operations across media types. The descriptions clarify that 'search-book' is for books only (by ISBN or query) while 'search-movie' covers movies and TVs, but the naming overlap might cause initial ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'list-book-reviews', 'search-book') with clear, descriptive names. The only minor deviation is 'browse', which uses a single verb without a noun, but this is acceptable as it describes a distinct browser action. Overall, the pattern is highly readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for interacting with Douban's key features (books, movies/TVs, groups). Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like searching, listing reviews, and browsing details, without being overly broad or too limited for the domain.
Completeness3/5
The server covers basic search and listing operations for books, movies/TVs, and groups, but has notable gaps in CRUD/lifecycle coverage. For example, there are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting reviews or topics, which limits agent workflows. However, the provided tools allow for core browsing and information retrieval tasks.
Average 2.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
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
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 behavioral traits such as read/write nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving critical operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification, consisting of only three words. While it avoids waste, it fails to provide necessary context and structure. A more effective description would be front-loaded with key details, but this one lacks any substantive content, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.
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 for a tool with one required parameter. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a list operation, details like pagination, sorting, or error handling are missing, making the description inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'douban book id, e.g. "1234567890"'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 'list book reviews' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'book reviews', but lacks any differentiation from sibling tools like 'list-movie-reviews' or 'list-tv-reviews' beyond the resource type. No additional scope, filtering capabilities, or purpose details are provided.
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 does not mention when-not scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'search-book' or 'browse'. There is no implied context or explicit usage instructions, leaving the agent with no direction on tool selection.
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. However, it only states the action without any details on traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficiency. It fails to front-load critical information and doesn't use its limited space to add value, making it too sparse to be helpful. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detail' entails, behavioral aspects, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving gaps in understanding. While the schema covers parameters well, the description should provide more context to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.
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 the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as a 'douban group topic id' with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage tips. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation effectively.
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 group topic detail' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'group topic detail', but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'detail' (e.g., content, metadata, comments) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list-group-topics'. This makes the purpose vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a topic ID), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools such as 'list-group-topics', leaving the agent without context for tool selection. This absence of usage instructions is misleading in practice.
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. However, it offers no information about what the tool returns (e.g., list format, pagination), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There is zero wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick scanning. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
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 (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'topics' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for using the tool effectively is lacking, making it inadequate for a tool of this nature.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., 'id' as 'douban group id', 'tags' as an array of strings). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
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 'list group topics' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'group topics' but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-group-topic-detail'. While it conveys the basic action, it's too vague to be genuinely helpful.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'browse' or 'get-group-topic-detail'. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and parameters alone.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the reviews are returned in. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action stated.
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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework for this dimension, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the basic action.
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 tool with one parameter but no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'list' means operationally, what format reviews are returned in, whether there are constraints on the movie ID, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about reviews, the description provides insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'douban movie id, e.g. "1234567890"'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
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 'list movie reviews' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal added value. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'movie reviews', but doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list-book-reviews' or 'list-tv-reviews' beyond the resource type. While it communicates the basic action, it lacks specificity about what kind of listing this provides.
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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for listing reviews (book, tv) and searching movies, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for a specific movie ID, whether it's comprehensive or filtered, or when to choose this over search-movie. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description fails to add any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'list'.
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 with just two words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, it efficiently communicates the core action without 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., review details, ratings, authors), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but no output information, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as a 'douban tv id'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 'list tv reviews' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'tv reviews', but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list-movie-reviews' or 'list-book-reviews'.
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 prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from similar tools like 'list-movie-reviews' or 'search-movie', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions opening a browser and browsing, implying a user-facing action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires user interaction, if it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.
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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after browsing (e.g., if it returns a URL or opens a page), any error conditions, or how it interacts with the system. For a tool that likely involves external actions, more context is needed to guide an AI agent 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 the parameter 'id' documented as 'douban book id, e.g. "1234567890"'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the parameter further. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the 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 ('open default browser and browse') and the resource ('douban book detail'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-book' or 'list-book-reviews', which might also involve book-related operations, so it misses 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 'search-book' or 'list-book-reviews'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid book ID, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios 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. It states the tool searches movies/TV shows from Douban, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what the search results include. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of results, details, pagination), error conditions, or usage constraints. For a search tool with one parameter, this leaves the agent without enough context to use it reliably.
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 parameter 'q' documented as a query string with an example. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'by query' which aligns with the parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. 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 action ('search') and resource ('movies or tvs from douban'), making the purpose evident. It specifies the data source (Douban) and scope (movies/TV shows), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search-book' tool beyond the resource type mentioned.
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 'browse' or other list tools. The description implies usage for searching movies/TV shows by query, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. The description is functional but lacks transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 efficiently communicates the essential information. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (book metadata, results format), how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when both parameters are provided. Without annotations and with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.
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 ('q' and 'isbn') having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the two search methods ('by ISBN or by query'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage, constraints, or interactions between parameters.
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 ('search books from douban') and the resource ('books'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'search-movie' beyond mentioning 'books' vs 'movie' - a human can infer the difference, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 when to use this tool by stating 'either by ISBN or by query,' suggesting it's for book searches. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'browse' or 'list-book-reviews,' nor does it mention any prerequisites 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.

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:

[![douban-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moria97/douban-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moria97/douban-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![douban-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moria97/douban-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/moria97/douban-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/moria97/douban-mcp'

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