scopeguard-mcp

by mzatylny

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health for status, engagement lifecycle (create/revoke), scope checking, planning, header analysis, repository scanning, and audit operations (list/verify). Even the two audit tools are distinct in intent—listing versus verifying integrity. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_dry_run_engagement, revoke_engagement, check_scope, plan_assessment, analyze_headers, scan_repository, list_audit_events, verify_audit_chain). The only deviation is 'health', which is a noun instead of a verb_noun form, but this is a common exception for status endpoints and does not detract from overall readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, this server is well-scoped for its domain of security assessment scope management. Each tool addresses a distinct operation without redundancy, and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers engagement creation and revocation, scope checking, planning, analysis, scanning, and audit verification. However, there is no way to list existing engagements or retrieve engagement details, which creates a gap in the engagement lifecycle. An agent cannot easily determine what engagements are active or inspect a specific engagement's configuration, limiting practical management.
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Immediately' and 'prevent further target operations' beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), giving useful behavioral context about the effect and timing. It does not contradict annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and a key consequence.
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 mutation tool with one required parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to obtain or format engagement_id, mention prerequisites, reversibility, or error conditions. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but other operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for engagement_id, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but fails to provide any meaning for the parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Immediately revoke an engagement and prevent further target operations.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dry_run_engagement, which creates rather than revokes.
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, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description states what the tool does but not the context in which it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, etc.), but the description adds meaningful context: the engagement is non-executing and execution is operator-CLI only. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's behavior, though it doesn't detail side effects like persistence.
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, front-loaded sentence that states purpose immediately and adds a useful nuance in the second clause. No wasted words.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is incomplete for confident use: it lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and any mention of preconditions or side effects. The description is too brief given 5 parameters and no schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter meaning. Terms like 'targets' and 'capabilities' are left undefined, offering no value beyond the raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a 'non-executing assessment scope' (a dry-run engagement), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only creation tool and clarifies that this is not an execution tool.
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?
Implied usage: this is for setting up a scope that will not execute, with actual execution limited to operator CLI. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like plan_assessment or explicitly state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the nature of checks (Python and secret) and the constraint 'under operator-allowed roots', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core action and constraints, 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?
While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings and provides no parameter clarification. It is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves gaps in operational decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 required parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'path' or 'engagement_id', and only vaguely hints at 'operator-allowed roots'. This is insufficient for understanding what values to pass.
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 uses a specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource 'built-in read-only Python and secret checks' and a scope 'under operator-allowed roots'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_headers or health, which address different concerns.
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 scanning an authorized local repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The 'operator-allowed roots' hint provides some context but not enough for clear decision-making.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (safety settings, capabilities, audit-chain health), but does not go further into operational behavior such as authentication or failure modes. This is adequate given strong annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and return scope. This is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to state what the tool returns. It lists three concrete areas (safety settings, capabilities, audit-chain health), which is complete for a simple health-check tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It could potentially clarify that no arguments are required, but this is obvious from the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and names concrete resources: server safety settings, capabilities, and audit-chain health. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it as a general health/inspection endpoint rather than a mutation or specific audit operation.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_audit_chain or check_scope. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the permission requirement (audit:read) and the recency of events, which is useful context, but does not elaborate on pagination or ordering. It contributes some value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 sentence that immediately conveys the action and key condition, with no superfluous content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 presence of an output schema, simple parameter set (2 params, 1 required), and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential condition and scope. It lacks explicit parameter clarification but is otherwise sufficient for a straightforward read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the engagement_id or limit parameters. Engagement_id is implied by 'when the engagement' but not explicitly described, and limit is entirely unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter semantics weak.
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 action ('Return recent audit events') and the resource ('audit events'), and the condition 'when the engagement includes audit:read' distinguishes it from siblings like verify_audit_chain. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 a clear usage condition: use the tool when the engagement has audit:read permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditional context is strong, and sibling differentiation is implicit in the distinctive action/resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds the crucial constraint that no HTTP request is performed, which is not captured by annotations. This provides valuable context beyond the structured metadata.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word adds meaning, and it perfectly integrates the core purpose with the key behavioral nuance.
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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the high-level behavior well. However, with three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing parameter semantics create a notable gap. An agent would struggle to correctly populate 'target' and 'engagement_id' without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'engagement_id', 'target', or 'headers'. While 'headers' is implied by the description, 'target' and 'engagement_id' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('caller-supplied response headers') and adds the key differentiator 'offline; no HTTP request is performed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_repository, which likely performs live requests.
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 clearly implies use cases by emphasizing that analysis is performed offline with caller-supplied data, so an agent understands this is for inspecting existing headers rather than fetching them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'normalize' behavior, which is useful, but does not disclose edge cases such as invalid targets or missing engagement IDs. This is adequate given the 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Normalize a target') and states the outcome ('report whether it is inside the engagement scope'). No unnecessary words or repetition.
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, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It does not describe normalization specifics or error handling, but these are not essential for a simple scope-check operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that 'target' is normalized and checked against 'engagement scope', implicitly assigning roles to both parameters. This adds value beyond the raw schema fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool normalizes a target and checks if it is inside an engagement scope. The verb 'normalize' and the specific resource ('engagement scope') make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_headers or scan_repository.
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 verifying whether a target falls within a defined scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context suggests it is a precondition check, but no explicit guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial behavioral trait that the tool does not execute network tools, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format, but an output schema is present.
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 one sentence of about 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Create' and free of any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and boundary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and rich annotations that cover safety and execution semantics. The description fully captures the planning-only scope and distinguishes it from execution tools. No additional detail is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. 'target' and 'engagement_id' are self-explanatory by name, but 'profile' is ambiguous and no constraints or formats are given. The description adds zero parameter semantics.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'assessment plan' and specifies scoping ('bounded web or repository') and the key constraint ('without running network tools'). This clearly distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like scan_repository.
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 phrase 'without running network tools' gives clear context that this is for planning only, not execution. It implies use before an actual scan, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope information ('every persisted event'), but does not disclose potential performance costs or behavior when tampering is detected.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and context without any wasted words or irrelevant detail.
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 presence of thorough annotations, a clear output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides adequate context for a verification tool. It could be improved by noting when to run it, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not omit anything necessary.
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 uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('every persisted event') with a clear mechanism ('tamper-evident hash chain'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_audit_events.
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 context implies the tool is for verifying audit log integrity, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_audit_events, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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