Trackings MCP Server

by peterw

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in the tracking/scanning domain. For example, create_scan configures scans, trigger_scan_run executes them, get_scan_results retrieves keyword data, and get_scan_run fetches run details—no overlap or ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as create_scan, get_credits, list_projects, and trigger_scan_run. This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy for agents to navigate without confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing scans, projects, and runs in a tracking system. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct operations like creation, listing, triggering, and retrieval, avoiding bloat or thin coverage.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage for scans and projects, including create, list, get, and trigger operations. A minor gap exists in update/delete functionality for scans or projects, but agents can work around this for core workflows.
Average 2.9/5 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 status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., resource consumption, rate limits), response format, or idempotency (despite an 'idempotency_key' parameter). This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 14%, with only 'project_id' documented. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain critical inputs like 'keywords', 'type', 'scan_type', or 'recurring_interval'. It doesn't compensate for the schema's gaps, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a scan configuration' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (scan configuration), but it's vague about what a 'scan configuration' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_scan_run' or 'list_scans', leaving the specific purpose ambiguous beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.
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 (e.g., needing a project from 'list_projects'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'trigger_scan_run' for execution or 'list_scans' for viewing configurations, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw output, or what happens with invalid run IDs. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context.
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 extremely concise with just one sentence. While this is efficient, it may be too minimal given the lack of annotations and sibling tools that could cause confusion. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.
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 scan operations, multiple sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' means, how this differs from other scan-related tools, or what format the return value takes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'run_id' documented as 'Scan run ID'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a scan run' clearly states the action (get) and resource (scan run details), but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_scan_results' or 'list_scan_runs' which might also provide scan-related information.
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_scan_results', 'list_scan_runs', and 'trigger_scan_run', there's no indication whether this tool should be used for metadata versus results, single runs versus lists, or before/after triggering scans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify what 'consolidated keyword results' means, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic action.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations and output schema.
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, no output schema, and sibling tools that provide similar scan-related information, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'consolidated keyword results' means, how they differ from other scan data, what format they come in, or provide enough context to distinguish this from other scan-related tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'scan_run_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to obtain it, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get consolidated keyword results') and the resource ('for a scan run'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs', which likely provide different types of scan-related information.
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 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a completed scan run), context for when consolidated keyword results are needed, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.
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, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions filtering by project or scan, but doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any limitations like rate limits. This leaves the agent guessing about key operational traits.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('List scan runs') and adds necessary detail ('by project or scan'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't cover return format, pagination, error handling, or how filtering works with the parameters. For a tool with two parameters and siblings like 'get_scan_run', 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'project_scan_id') adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying these are used for filtering ('by project or scan'), but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how they interact or if both can be used together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('scan runs'), specifying they can be filtered 'by project or scan'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'list_scans' by focusing on runs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_scan_run' (singular) or 'trigger_scan_run', leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for browsing runs versus 'get_scan_run' for detailed single-run info, or 'list_scans' for scan metadata. The description implies filtering but offers no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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 action ('List scans') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns summaries or full details, or handles errors. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 'List scans for a project' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy 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 complexity (a list operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, pagination), usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'scans' entails (e.g., types, statuses) or how the project_id is used. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
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 'List scans for a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('scans'), with the context 'for a project' providing scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'list_scan_runs' (which lists scan runs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_scan_results' or 'get_scan_run', which might retrieve specific scan details. This is clear but lacks full sibling differentiation.
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 (e.g., needing a valid project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_scan_runs' (for runs within scans) or 'get_scan_results' (for detailed results). Without such context, users must infer usage from 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. It states the tool triggers a scan run, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., resource consumption, time to complete), permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose 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?
Given the complexity of triggering a scan run (a mutation with no annotations, 2 parameters, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool 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 50% (only 'scan_id' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It implies 'scan_id' is for an existing configuration but doesn't explain format or sourcing. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'idempotency_key' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('trigger') and resource ('scan run for an existing scan configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs', which also deal with scan runs but for retrieval rather than initiation.
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 minimal guidance by implying usage when a scan configuration exists, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_scan' for new scans or 'get_scan_run' for checking status. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.
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 mentions retrieving 'current' data, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs. cached data, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves sensitive financial information.
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 front-loads the core action ('Get') and resources. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., structured data vs. raw numbers), error handling, or dependencies, which could be helpful for an agent despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter explanations.
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 specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('current credit balance and subscription info'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools (like checking balances vs. usage details), 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 (e.g., for credit checks vs. other financial queries) or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context, leaving the agent to infer 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all projects at once, includes pagination, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it ideal for quick comprehension.
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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on return format, pagination, or error handling, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively in a broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('projects in Trackings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'list_scan_runs', which would require mentioning what makes projects distinct from scans or scan runs.
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 listing projects, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'create_scan', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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