Mouser Electronics MCP Server

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 check, two distinct search types (keyword vs part number), cart operations (get, add, update), order options, order retrieval, and order history. There is no overlap or potential confusion between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., health_check, search_by_keyword, add_to_cart, list_order_history). The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
Tool Count4/5
With 9 tools covering search, cart, and order management, the count is well-scoped for an e-commerce electronics component server. It is slightly on the lower side but each tool earns its place, and the set feels complete without unnecessary extras.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main workflows: searching parts, managing a cart, and viewing orders. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to create a new cart (add_to_cart assumes an existing cart) and possibly a part detail view separate from search, but overall it covers essential e-commerce operations adequately.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions returning up to 50 results with pricing, availability, datasheets, and specifications. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, case-sensitivity, or error handling. While adequate, it could be more transparent.
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, two sentences long, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the search scope, result contents, and result limit. It could mention pagination behavior explicitly, but the schema handles that. Overall, it is fairly complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on pagination behavior or defaults, which are already clear in the 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 clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'parts', and the scope 'across part numbers, manufacturers, and descriptions'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'search_by_part_number', which is a more specific search.
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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_part_number'. It lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 'complete order information' and lists categories, implying a read-only lookup, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for invalid order numbers. It is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every piece adds value. It could arguably be a single sentence, but it is well-structured and avoids redundancy. Minor reduction possible but not necessary.
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 output schema exists (so return format is covered), one required parameter, no nested objects, and clear sibling names, the description is nearly complete. It only lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites, which is a small gap for such a simple tool.
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% (the property 'order_number' is described as 'Mouser order number or web order number'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify format, length, examples, or distinguish between order number types.
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 'get' and resource 'order details by order number', distinguishing it from siblings like list_order_history (which returns a list) and get_order_options (which returns configuration options). It specifies the input method (order number) and the output categories (status, items, totals, shipping, tracking), leaving no ambiguity.
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 it (when you need details for a specific order), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like list_order_history or get_order_options. There are no alternatives mentioned or exclusion criteria.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation by stating 'Retrieves', but does not confirm idempotency or safety for repeated calls. It also omits error behavior for invalid/missing cart_key, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The partial transparency about what is returned is adequate but could be improved with explicit read-only or idempotency hints.
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 main purpose, and includes a list of retrieved items. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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 that this is a simple read tool with a single parameter and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It lists the categories of data returned, eliminating the need to detail return values. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it is safe to call multiple times or that the cart must be active. Still, for the complexity level, the description is largely complete.
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% (one parameter with a clear description). The tool description adds only the context that the cart is 'specified' but does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of cart_key, validation rules). According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents the parameter and description adds little.
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 ('Get'/'Retrieves') and identifies the resource ('order options for a cart'). It lists specific categories (billing/shipping addresses, payment methods, shipping options) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_cart and get_order, which focus on different aspects of the cart/order workflow.
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 when retrieving order configuration details for a selected cart, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_cart or get_order. No exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., cart must exist) are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage context from the sibling names and general domain knowledge.
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 describes the output content (order numbers, dates, statuses, totals) and implies a read operation with 'Retrieves a summary.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or mention any authentication or rate limits, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 in the first sentence. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.
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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the primary purpose, the time range, and the key fields in the summary. It is nearly complete, though it could mention ordering or pagination for completeness.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'days' with a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value by reframing 'past N days' in context, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already offers.
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 ('List') and resource ('order history') with a clear scope ('for the past N days'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_order (single order) and get_cart (current cart) by focusing on a summary of multiple past orders.
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 states the tool is 'useful for tracking order history and status,' providing a general context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like search_by_keyword or get_order, leaving the agent to infer the best choice.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core mutation behavior and the removal trick, but does not mention side effects, error states, or preconditions (e.g., item must exist). Lacks depth for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy between 'Update the quantity' and 'Changes the quantity' that could be merged, but overall efficient and easy to parse.
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 (3 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the primary use case and removal behavior. It omits error conditions but is adequate for basic operation.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'set quantity to 0 removes item', which is already in the schema. Does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 updates the quantity of an existing cart item, distinguishing it from siblings like add_to_cart (adds new items) and get_cart (views cart). It also covers the removal behavior via setting quantity to 0.
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 implies usage for modifying existing cart item quantities, with the removal behavior noted. It does not explicitly exclude other tools but the context (sibling names and the tool's scope) makes it clear. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
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 must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the idempotent behavior (update quantity if part exists) which is helpful, but does not mention whether the cart_key must be valid or what happens on error. The description is adequate but not comprehensive 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 very concise: a title-like line followed by two brief sentences. Every sentence adds value—clarifying the action, the resource, and the edge case for existing parts. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool has a clear, simple action, and the description covers the core behavior (add/update). A minor gap is authentication requirements or expected cart ownership, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the complexity level.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('add') and resource ('item to existing shopping cart'), specifying exactly what action is performed. It distinguishes itself from update_cart_item by describing what happens when the part already exists in the cart (quantity updated), and is clearly not confused with get_cart or other siblings.
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 implies usage context (an existing cart, a part number, and quantity). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides natural contrast. The information is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly uses 'Retrieve' and 'Gets', indicating a read-only operation, and lists the included content (items, quantities, pricing, totals). However, it does not discuss error conditions, permissions, or whether it creates a cart if missing, leaving some 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the key action and then expanding on the response contents. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the purpose and key aspects of the response. Missing edge-case behavior but adequate given the 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 schema already fully describes cart_key as a UUID. The description only repeats 'by cart key' without adding formatting or semantic details, so it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Retrieve') and the resource ('shopping cart contents') and specifies the access method ('by cart key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cart retrieval rather than order retrieval or modifications.
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 implies usage when needing the current shopping cart state, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. It gives clear context but no exclusions, so it is a 4.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('dictionary') and content ('server status and API configuration info'). For a health check tool, this sufficiently communicates read-only, non-destructive 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return information. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.
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 no parameters, a simple purpose, and an existing output schema (so response structure is covered), the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention authentication requirements, but for a health check this is often unnecessary.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the response details beyond the empty schema, clarifying what the tool returns.
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 checks 'health status of the Mouser MCP server', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools (search, cart, order operations), leaving no ambiguity.
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 server health, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Given the simplicity and unique purpose, it is adequate but lacks explicit context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed part information (pricing, availability, datasheets, specifications) and uses the verb 'search', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. This adequately conveys the behavior, though it could be more explicit about safety (e.g., confirming no side effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second providing additional behavioral detail. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but signaled) and only one parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the input expected, and the type of information returned (pricing, availability, datasheets, specifications). No gaps remain.
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% coverage with a single parameter 'part_number' described as 'Exact Mouser or manufacturer part number'. The description repeats this exact phrasing and adds that it performs an exact match search. While consistent, the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for a specific part by exact part number, differentiating it from the sibling 'search_by_keyword' which uses partial or keyword matching. The verb 'search' and resource 'part' are specific, and the phrase 'exact match' leaves no ambiguity.
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 says 'exact match search for a Mouser or manufacturer part number', which tells the agent to use this when an exact part number is available. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the differentiation from 'search_by_keyword' is clear from context.
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:

[![mouser-mcp-docker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mouser-mcp-docker/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mouser-mcp-docker)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mouser-mcp-docker MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mouser-mcp-docker/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nickweedon/mouser-mcp-docker)

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/nickweedon/mouser-mcp-docker'

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