MCP RifaExpress Backend

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_companies, get_plans, get_subscriptions, get_users retrieve specific entities, health_check tests connectivity, inspect_table examines schema, list_tables enumerates tables, and query_db executes custom queries. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'rifaexpress_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with verbs like 'get', 'health_check', 'inspect', 'list', and 'query'. This predictability aids agent understanding and tool selection without confusion from mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for a backend database interaction server. It covers essential operations like data retrieval, schema inspection, and health checks without being overly sparse or bloated, making each tool earn its place in the set.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong read-only coverage for database interaction, including entity retrieval, schema exploration, and connectivity checks. However, it lacks write operations (e.g., create, update, delete), which could be a gap for full CRUD workflows, though this might be intentional for security as noted in query_db's description.
Average 3.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the table existence condition, which adds some context about potential failure modes, but doesn't describe what happens when the table doesn't exist, what permissions are required, whether this is a read-only operation, what format results are returned in, or any pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but contains irrelevant implementation details about 'Fase 1 del SaaS Core' that don't help an AI agent understand how to use the tool. The first sentence is functional but the second sentence adds no value for tool selection or invocation. It's not optimally front-loaded with 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?
For a query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subscriptions' are in this context, what data is returned, how results are structured, or what happens when filters are applied. The mention of table existence hints at potential failure modes but doesn't provide complete guidance 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or add context about how filtering works. The baseline of 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'obtains subscriptions' which provides a basic verb+resource, but it's vague about scope and adds confusing implementation details about table existence and SaaS phases. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like rifaexpress_get_companies or rifaexpress_get_plans, which follow similar patterns.
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. While it mentions 'if the table exists' as a conditional, this is an implementation detail rather than usage guidance. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other query or list tools on the server.
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 read operation ('obtiene'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.
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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with no 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 that this tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral context. For a tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational information to be considered 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'isActive' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema documentation.
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 'Obtiene plans de suscripción' clearly states the verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('plans de suscripción' - subscription plans), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_get_subscriptions' or 'rifaexpress_get_companies' 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 what distinguishes getting subscription plans from getting subscriptions themselves (via rifaexpress_get_subscriptions) or when filtering by active status might be appropriate. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
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 (gets users with filters) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 states the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (array of user objects? what fields?), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to properly use it.
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 description mentions the optional filters (companyId and role) which aligns with the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, but it does confirm the optional nature of these filters.
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 ('Obtiene' - gets/fetches) and resource ('users'), and mentions optional filters. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like rifaexpress_query_db or rifaexpress_inspect_table, but the focus on users is clear. The purpose is specific enough to understand what the tool does.
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 mentions optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rifaexpress_query_db for more complex queries or rifaexpress_inspect_table for table inspection. There's no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or limitations.
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. It states it's a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, safe, paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 database tool. It doesn't explain what the list returns (table names, metadata?), format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with a database schema, more context is needed.
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 the single parameter with its type and default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 ('Lista todas las tablas') and target resource ('en el schema especificado'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_inspect_table' or 'rifaexpress_query_db', 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 sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_inspect_table' for detailed table information or 'rifaexpress_query_db' for custom queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
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 describes a read operation ('obtiene') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no companies match the filters. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the purpose and key feature (optional filters). It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage context. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance would improve completeness, but it's minimally viable for a simple retrieval 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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'filtros opcionales de subscriptionStatus', aligning with the schema's 'subscriptionStatus' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning of the enum values (active, inactive, past_due) or the 'limit' parameter's default behavior. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 'obtiene' (gets/retrieves) and the resource 'companies (empresas)', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rifaexpress_get_plans or rifaexpress_get_users by specifying it retrieves companies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with rifaexpress_query_db or rifaexpress_inspect_table, which might also retrieve company data, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 mentions 'filtros opcionales de subscriptionStatus' (optional subscriptionStatus filters), which implies usage for filtering by subscription status, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rifaexpress_query_db for more complex queries or rifaexpress_get_subscriptions for subscription-specific data. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are stated.
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 inspects table schema, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the table does not exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Inspecciona el schema de una tabla específica') and includes relevant details ('columnas, tipos, nullability, etc.') without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 complexity (a simple schema inspection with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects or usage context. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks depth needed for full agent guidance, especially without annotations to fill in 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'tableName' clearly documented as 'Name of the table to inspect'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra input from the description.
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: 'Inspecciona el schema de una tabla específica' (Inspects the schema of a specific table). It specifies the verb 'inspecciona' (inspects) and the resource 'schema de una tabla' (table schema), and mentions what information is retrieved: 'columnas, tipos, nullability, etc.' (columns, types, nullability, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_list_tables' or 'rifaexpress_query_db', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.
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 it should be used (e.g., for schema analysis before querying), when not to use it (e.g., for data retrieval), or refer to sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_list_tables' (which might list tables) or 'rifaexpress_query_db' (which might query data). This lack of contextual guidance results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's diagnostic purpose but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens on connection failure, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output format looks like.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 diagnostic purpose and zero parameters, the description is reasonably complete but lacks details about output format or failure modes. With no output schema and no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful for a diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Verifica la conexión') and resource ('base de datos PostgreSQL'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform data retrieval or query operations rather than connectivity testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Útil para diagnosticar problemas de configuración'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the SELECT-only restriction for security, which is valuable context about limitations. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors like error handling, timeout policies, result format, or connection requirements that would be helpful for a database query 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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial security context. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the most important 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?
For a database query tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the security restriction well but lacks information about result format, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would help an agent 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'queries SELECT' which aligns with the sql parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond the schema's documentation.
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 ('Ejecuta una query SELECT') and resource ('base de datos PostgreSQL de RifaExpress'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific predefined queries. It explicitly mentions the SELECT-only restriction, which differentiates it from general database tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool ('queries SELECT') and when not to use it ('Solo queries SELECT están permitidas por seguridad'), clearly indicating this is for read-only queries. It implicitly suggests alternatives (the sibling tools) for specific data retrieval needs.
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:

[![mcp_rifaexpress MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/piedraprog/mcp_rifaexpress/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/piedraprog/mcp_rifaexpress)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_rifaexpress MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/piedraprog/mcp_rifaexpress/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/piedraprog/mcp_rifaexpress)

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/piedraprog/mcp_rifaexpress'

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