ContextKeeper MCP Server

by ondrahracek

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list vs search vs status, CRUD operations (add, edit, mark_done, remove), and setup/sync (init, sync). No two tools could be easily confused.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_context_items, add_context_item, mark_context_done, get_context_status, search_context_items, remove_context_item, edit_context_item, sync_context_items, init_context.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a context management server, covering all essential operations without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD and lifecycle are covered (create, read, update, delete, status, search, sync). Minor gap: soft-deleted items are described as recoverable but no explicit recovery tool is exposed, which is a small dead end.
Average 3.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states it edits content and/or tags, but fails to mention any side effects, permission requirements, or the behavior of partial updates (e.g., whether providing only tags will leave content unchanged). No such context is added beyond the basic purpose.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though extremely brief. It earns a high score for structure and efficiency, but not a 5 because it omits contextual details that could be helpful without much added length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, is a mutation operation, and has no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return behavior, whether the removal of tags is allowed, or how the 'sync' parameter affects the operation. The schema partially compensates, but the description fails to provide a holistic understanding of the tool's behavior.
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, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'content and/or tags', which are already defined. It provides no extra insight into the 'path' or 'sync' parameters beyond their schema 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 clearly states the tool edits an existing context item's content and/or tags using its ID. This uses a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('context item'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_context_item or list_context_items.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description only implies usage via the verb 'edit', but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer sibling tools like add_context_item or remove_context_item.
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 exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the tool 'updates the .context-keeper directory', but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, requires initialization, or is idempotent. This lack of side-effect detail is a significant gap for a sync operation.
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 with no redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying the operation's essence, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally explain expected return values or side effects, but it does not. The existence of init_context and get_context_status suggests prerequisites or status checks are relevant, yet they are unmentioned. The description covers the basic action but leaves the agent without critical context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'path' parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic value to the parameter, failing to explain how 'path' relates to the '.context-keeper directory' or whether it must point to an initialized context.
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 'Trigger a sync' with resources 'context items' and 'AI agent files', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling CRUD and status tools. It names the exact effect (.context-keeper directory), so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like init_context, add_context_item, or get_context_status. The description merely states what it does but gives no context for invocation, prerequisites, or 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 disclosing behavior. It does not mention that completed items may be excluded by default (as implied by the showCompleted parameter), nor does it address pagination, ordering, or read-only guarantees. The phrase 'List all' is ambiguous given the optional showCompleted flag.
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 exactly two sentences and directly states the action and output fields with no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and output fields but leaves ambiguity about default filtering (completed items) and lacks usage guidance. The field list partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the default behavior gap remains notable.
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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (path and showCompleted), covering 100% of parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since schema coverage is complete, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('context items from ContextKeeper'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_context_items. It also lists the exact output fields (ID, content, project, tags, completion status), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_context_items. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It notes that matching items are returned but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether the path parameter is required or defaults to something, or what 'details' includes. No side effects, permissions, or return format are disclosed.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and mentions the key parameters. No filler or redundant information.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify return values, but it only says 'Returns matching items with their details.' It does not address edge cases like empty query/tags (potentially listing all), pagination, or the exact structure of the returned items. This is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description mentions query and tags, reinforcing their purpose, but path and showCompleted are only explained by the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, with some added context for two parameters.
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 context items using a query string and/or tags, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It implicitly distinguishes from list_context_items by adding search criteria and from mutation tools like add/remove/edit.
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 the tool is for searching by query/tags, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_context_items or provide exclusion criteria. The use case is inferred but not fully delineated.
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 only restates the action ('Add a new context item') without revealing side effects such as what the sync parameter does, where items are stored, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero fluff: the first states the action and target, the second states the use case. It is well front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, the effect of the sync parameter, or any consequences of adding an item, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
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 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 ('Add') with an explicit resource ('context item to ContextKeeper') and a clear use case ('track tasks, ideas, or notes'). The word 'new' distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_context_item, remove_context_item, and list_context_items, which operate on existing items.
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?
'Use this to track tasks, ideas, or notes' gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not state exclusions or explicitly name alternatives such as edit_context_item or remove_context_item for modifying or deleting existing items.
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. While 'Get a summary' suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it disclose any side effects, error conditions, or requirements like needing an initialized context. This is a significant gap for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly names the action and the key output components. No unnecessary words or repetition; it efficiently conveys the tool's essence.
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 description lists the exact output categories (total items, completed vs active counts, projects, tags), which is useful since there is no output schema. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., missing path, uninitialized context) but is otherwise complete for a simple, one-parameter 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?
The schema description covers the only parameter 'path' with 'Path to the context directory', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance 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's purpose: 'Get a summary of the context' and enumerates specific elements (total items, completed vs active counts, projects, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, add, or modify items, so the agent can easily select it for status overviews.
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 a summary is needed (for counts and tags), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_context_items or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is clear context but no explicit guidance or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether the 'path' parameter is required in any scenario. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only necessary details.
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?
The tool is simple and the purpose is clear, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about return behavior and the optional 'path' parameter. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats the ID format already present in the schema and does not add extra meaning, so the baseline score of 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 ('mark as completed'), the resource ('context item'), and the identifier format (full UUID or 6-char prefix). This is specific and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_context_item or edit_context_item.
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 purpose implicitly defines when to use the tool: when a context item needs to be marked as completed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for other modifications, use edit_context_item'), so it provides clear context without exclusion 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool does. It does disclose the primary side effects: creating a .contextkeeper folder and items.json file. However, it does not mention behavior in edge cases (e.g., if the directory already exists, whether files are overwritten, or whether parent directories are created), leaving some uncertainty.
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, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose and specific artifacts without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.
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?
For a simple initialization tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is created and where. It could mention return values or failure modes, but the tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably 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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'path' parameter, including its default behavior, so the description adds little beyond what structured data provides. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 ('Initialize') and names the exact resources created ('.contextkeeper' folder and 'items.json' file). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, which all operate on an existing context rather than creating one.
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 'Initialize a new ContextKeeper directory' clearly implies this tool is for setting up a fresh context directory, which is distinct from the alternative sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the scope is clear from the word 'new'.
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. It discloses the key behavioral trait: soft-deletion and recoverability. While it doesn't cover permissions or side effects like syncing, the important non-destructive nature is clearly stated, adding value beyond a simple 'remove'.
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 efficiently conveys purpose and the key behavioral nuance. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema details.
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 and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, that it's soft-delete, and that it's recoverable. It could mention the effects of the sync parameter or return behavior, but the core purpose and operational behavior are adequately covered.
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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds little beyond confirming that removal is by ID, which matches the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb ('Remove (archive)') and resource ('a context item by ID'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit or add, and the archive/soft-delete framing separates it from potential alternatives like mark_context_done.
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 removing/archiving items but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., mark_context_done for completing without removal). There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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