Node.js Debugger MCP Server

by qckfx

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

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 within the Node.js debugging domain, with no overlapping functionality. For example, attach_debugger, start_node_process, and list_processes handle different aspects of process management, while pause_execution, step_debug, and set_breakpoint target specific debugging actions without ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as attach_debugger, evaluate_expression, and pause_execution. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand, with no deviations in naming conventions across the eight tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for Node.js debugging, covering essential operations like process management, execution control, and expression evaluation. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need in the debugging workflow, avoiding both bloat and gaps in functionality.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for core Node.js debugging tasks, including process lifecycle (start, list, kill), execution control (pause, step), and debugging setup (attach, set breakpoint). A minor gap exists in missing tools for removing breakpoints or inspecting variables, but agents can still perform most debugging workflows effectively.
Average 3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Step through code execution' implies a read-only or controlled execution action, but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it changes program state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like pausing). For a debugging 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear, though it could benefit from more detail. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification, as it lacks elaboration on context or usage.
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 debugging tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., 'attach_debugger'), or the execution context. For a tool that likely requires a debugger session, this leaves too many unanswered questions.
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 'action' parameter well-documented via enum values ('next', 'step', 'continue', 'out'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining differences between actions or their impact. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Step through code execution' clearly indicates the tool's function but is somewhat vague. It specifies the action (stepping through code) but doesn't mention what resource it operates on (e.g., a debugger session, process) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pause_execution' or 'set_breakpoint'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
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 an attached debugger), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'continue' or 'next' in the action enum. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens after attachment (e.g., pauses execution, allows debugging), potential side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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 front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose language.
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 debugging operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'attach' entails (e.g., control flow, debugging capabilities), what the tool returns, or how it interacts with other debugger tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this minimal description leaves significant 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'port' documented as 'Debug port to connect to'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or 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 action ('Attach debugger') and target ('to a running Node.js process'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' or 'step_debug' which are also debugger-related operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself within the tool family.
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 running Node.js process), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'start_node_process' (to create a process) or 'list_processes' (to identify processes). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 evaluates expressions but doesn't describe what happens (e.g., returns a value, modifies state, requires specific permissions), potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with runtime state.
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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context ('current debug context'). Every element 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debug operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only vs. mutating), expected results, error handling, and dependencies on other tools (like 'attach_debugger'). For a debug tool with potential side effects, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'expression' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid expressions, syntax rules, or scope limitations). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 ('evaluate') and resource ('expression'), and specifies the context ('in the current debug context'), which distinguishes it from general evaluation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'step_debug' or 'set_breakpoint' that also operate in debug contexts.
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 mentioning 'current debug context', implying it should be used during debugging sessions. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use rules, no alternatives among the seven sibling tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a debugger must be attached first).
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. 'Kill' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but the description doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, error handling (e.g., if PID doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., process termination signals). This is inadequate for a mutation 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 purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive action with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a kill operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pid' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format constraints, valid PID ranges, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 ('kill') and target ('a managed Node.js process'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pause_execution' or 'list_processes' in terms of finality or process lifecycle management, which would be helpful for 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 like 'pause_execution' or 'attach_debugger'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running process), consequences of killing versus pausing, or any exclusions (e.g., cannot kill system processes). This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making help.
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 that debugging is enabled, which adds context beyond the basic 'start' action, but it doesn't cover critical behaviors like whether this starts a background process, what happens on errors, if it requires specific permissions, or the output format. For a tool that launches processes with debugging, 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 that front-loads the core action ('Start a Node.js process') and adds a key condition ('with debugging enabled'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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 starting a debugging-enabled process, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., process lifecycle, error handling), output expectations, or integration with sibling tools like 'attach_debugger'. The description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with system processes and debugging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'script', 'args', and 'cwd'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 ('Start') and resource ('Node.js process') with a specific condition ('with debugging enabled'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_processes' (list vs start) and 'kill_process' (terminate vs start), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from similar tools like 'attach_debugger'.
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 script file), when not to use it (e.g., if a process is already running), or explicit alternatives like 'attach_debugger' for existing processes. Usage is implied by the action but lacks contextual direction.
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 what the tool does but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits, such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of processes. It doesn't explain what 'managed' means, the format of the output (e.g., list of IDs, names, statuses), or any limitations like pagination. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves too much unspecified.
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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.
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 ('List') and resource ('all managed Node.js processes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'attach_debugger' or 'kill_process' beyond the basic operation type, which would require more specific scope or context 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 'start_node_process' or 'kill_process'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether processes must be running or managed, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.
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 the action ('Pause execution') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible (e.g., via a resume command), what happens to process state during pause, or error conditions (e.g., fails if no debugger attached). The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.
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 a debugger operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'pause' entails (e.g., halts threads, preserves state), what the expected outcome is (e.g., success confirmation, error if not debuggable), or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a mutation tool in a debugging context, more behavioral context is needed.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Pause execution') and target ('debugged process'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kill_process' (terminates) and 'step_debug' (single-step execution) by focusing on suspension. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_breakpoint' also affects execution flow).
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., requires an active debug session), exclusions (e.g., cannot pause if already paused), or when to choose siblings like 'step_debug' for finer control or 'kill_process' for termination instead of suspension.
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 that breakpoints are set 'in the debugged process' and advises on URL usage for reliability, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it affects execution immediately), error handling, or what happens if the breakpoint already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 extremely concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical advice. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 mutation operation with 3 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage tip but lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., effects, error cases) and return value information. However, the high schema coverage partially compensates for parameter documentation.
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 three parameters (file, line, condition) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the use of 'full file:// URLs' for the file parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Set a breakpoint') and target ('in the debugged process'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pause_execution' or 'step_debug' that control execution flow rather than setting breakpoints. It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and unambiguous.
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 includes guidance on when to use this tool ('Use full file:// URLs for reliable breakpoint hits'), which helps differentiate it from tools like 'evaluate_expression' or 'list_processes'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives among siblings, such as using 'pause_execution' for immediate halting instead.
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:

[![node-debugger-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qckfx/node-debugger-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/qckfx/node-debugger-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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