Formula One MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: analyze_driver_performance focuses on individual driver analysis, compare_drivers handles multi-driver comparisons, get_championship_standings retrieves standings, get_driver_info provides driver details, get_event_info covers Grand Prix specifics, get_event_schedule gives calendar data, get_session_results returns session outcomes, and get_telemetry accesses lap telemetry. The descriptions make each tool's unique scope immediately apparent.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with perfect uniformity: analyze_driver_performance, compare_drivers, get_championship_standings, get_driver_info, get_event_info, get_event_schedule, get_session_results, and get_telemetry. The naming convention is predictable and readable throughout the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Formula One data server, covering key areas like drivers, events, sessions, standings, and telemetry without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by addressing a distinct aspect of the domain, making the set comprehensive yet manageable.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is nearly complete for accessing Formula One data, covering drivers, events, sessions, standings, and telemetry with clear CRUD-like retrieval operations. A minor gap exists in update or creation tools (e.g., for predictions or simulations), but this is reasonable for a data-focused server, and agents can work effectively with the provided read-only tools.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('analyze') but doesn't explain what 'analyze' entails—whether it returns statistics, insights, or raw data; if it's read-only or has side effects; or any performance or permission considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and context, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of analyzing performance in a dynamic sport like Formula One, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'analyze' returns (e.g., metrics, comparisons, or raw data), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output, which is inadequate 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, clearly documenting all 4 required parameters (year, event_identifier, session_name, driver_identifier). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as analyzing a driver's performance in a Formula One session, specifying the resource (driver) and context (session). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_results' or 'compare_drivers' that might also involve performance analysis, making it clear but not fully distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_session_results' and 'compare_drivers' that might overlap in analyzing performance, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works, what format the comparison takes, whether it returns statistical data or visualizations, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward comparison tool and gets directly to the point with zero wasted verbiage.
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 tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'performance' means in this context, what metrics are compared, the format of results, or how to interpret the output. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Compare performance between multiple Formula One drivers' with a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('drivers'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_driver_info' (individual info) and 'get_championship_standings' (overall standings), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_driver_performance' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'analyze_driver_performance', 'get_session_results', or other sibling tools. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for using this comparison tool.
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 but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the standings include (e.g., driver/constructor rankings, points), how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or data freshness. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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, thoroughly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Formula One championship standings'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_driver_info' or 'get_session_results' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_session_results' or 'compare_drivers', leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what kind of information is returned (e.g., biographical details, session stats, or telemetry), whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with four required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of four required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., driver stats, session performance, or personal details), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output. With no annotations and a read-like operation implied, more context on return values or behavioral traits is needed for adequate 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% description coverage, providing clear details for all four parameters (year, event_identifier, session_name, driver_identifier). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact to fetch driver info. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific Formula One driver'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_driver_performance' or 'get_session_results', which might also provide driver-related information, so it misses the highest score for 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. With sibling tools like 'analyze_driver_performance' and 'get_session_results' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for basic driver details, performance metrics, or session-specific data, leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool safely and 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the results include (e.g., lap times, positions), potential errors, or behavioral aspects like data freshness or access restrictions. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('results for a specific Formula One session'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event_info' or 'get_telemetry', which might also retrieve session-related data, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for historical data only or how it differs from siblings like 'get_event_info' or 'analyze_driver_performance'.
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 full burden. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns past/future seasons, error handling for invalid years, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the domain (Formula One), resource (race calendar), and scope (specific season).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidelines. Given the low complexity, it's complete enough to understand what it does, but not how to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'year' documented as 'Season year (e.g., 2023)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., valid year ranges, format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Formula One race calendar'), specifying it's for a specific season. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_info (single event) or get_session_results (session-level data), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous though not maximally differentiated.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event_info (for single events) or get_session_results (for session data). The description implies usage for season-wide calendar retrieval but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not rules or mention sibling tools as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes meaning.
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 does not explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., event date, circuit, results), how results are structured, or potential error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 clear documentation for 'year' and 'identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('specific Formula One Grand Prix'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event_schedule' (which lists events) and 'get_session_results' (which focuses on race sessions), as this tool retrieves detailed info about a single event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose it over siblings like 'get_event_schedule' (for schedules) or 'get_session_results' (for results), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
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 but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention response format, data structure, error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading).
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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with well-documented parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with comprehensive parameter documentation but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what data is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, data fields, or any limitations. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.
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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('telemetry data for a specific Formula One lap'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_driver_info or get_session_results which focus on different data types. It precisely defines the scope as lap-level telemetry rather than broader performance metrics.
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 analyze_driver_performance or get_session_results. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

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:

[![f1-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/notsedano/f1-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/notsedano/f1-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![f1-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/notsedano/f1-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/notsedano/f1-mcp-server)

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/notsedano/f1-mcp-server'

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