This server lets AI agents create, compile, publish, and manage interactive web apps, games, and 3D scenes written in Rosh plain-English code.
rosh_docs — Fetch the full Rosh language reference, keywords, widgets, targets, and examples.
rosh_compile — Compile Rosh code into runnable HTML for web, Phaser, or Three.js targets.
rosh_publish — Compile and publish a Rosh program to rosh.cloud with a title, slug, description, and target.
rosh_list_programs — List all programs owned by the authenticated user.
rosh_get_program — Get details of a specific program by numeric ID.
rosh_update_program — Update an existing program's title, description, code, or target.
rosh_delete_program — Permanently delete a program.
rosh_hide_program / rosh_show_program — Hide or unhide a program for moderation using an ID or slug.
Most tools require a rosh.cloud API key; publishing and deleting require write scope, while hide/show require moderate scope.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Rosh MCP Server Create a simple space shooter game"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Give any AI the power to create and publish interactive web apps, games, and 3D scenes using Rosh — a plain-English programming language.
Rosh lets you write programs in plain English:
create box called player at 400 300
set player color "blue"
on key "ArrowRight" then set player x to player x + 5This compiles to a runnable HTML5 canvas app, a Phaser game, or a Three.js 3D scene — depending on the target.
Related MCP server: maige-3d-mcp
Add to your MCP config (~/.claude/mcp.json or Claude Desktop settings):
{
"mcpServers": {
"rosh": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["rosh-mcp"],
"env": {
"ROSH_API_KEY": "rosh_k1_your_key_here"
}
}
}
}Same config format — add to your MCP settings file.
Create an account at rosh.cloud
Go to Settings → API Keys
Create a key with read,write scopes
Note: All tools require an API key — set
ROSH_API_KEYbefore starting the server.
Tool | Description | Auth Required |
| Get the full Rosh language reference | Yes (read) |
| Compile Rosh code to HTML | Yes (read) |
| Publish a program to rosh.cloud | Yes (write) |
| List your programs | Yes (read) |
| Get program details by ID | Yes (read) |
| Update an existing program | Yes (write) |
| Delete a program | Yes (write) |
| Hide a program (moderation) | Yes (moderate) |
| Unhide a program | Yes (moderate) |
Try these with any MCP-capable AI:
"Build me a space shooter game" — AI reads docs, writes Rosh code, compiles to Phaser
"Create a 3D rotating sculpture" — compiles to Three.js
"Make an interactive dashboard with buttons and counters" — compiles to web
"Show me what Rosh can do" — AI calls rosh_docs and explores
Variable | Required | Default | Description |
| Yes | — | Your rosh.cloud API key |
| No |
| API base URL |
git clone https://github.com/rosh-studio/rosh-mcp.git
cd rosh-mcp
pip install -e .
rosh-mcp # runs the stdio serverMIT
Compile Rosh code into a runnable HTML page. No API key needed.
Rosh is a plain-English programming language. Example: create box called player at 400 300 set player color "blue" on key "ArrowRight" then set player x to player x + 5
Args: code: Rosh source code to compile target: Target platform — "web" (HTML5 canvas), "phaser" (game engine), or "threejs" (3D)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| target | No | web |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It discloses compilation to HTML and no API key, but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, error conditions, or output structure. Minimal 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using four well-structured parts: purpose, a notable detail (no API key), an illustrative example, and clear parameter definitions. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the tool's function and parameters, but omits details about the output (e.g., returned format, behavior on errors). Given an output schema exists, the burden is partially relieved, but the description could still be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by naming both parameters and providing allowed values for 'target'. However, 'code' parameter lacks format or constraints beyond 'Rosh source code'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compiles Rosh code into a runnable HTML page, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools which manage programs (delete, get, publish, etc.) rather than compile code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'No API key needed' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose but not contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Permanently delete a program. Requires API key with write scope.
Args: program_id: The numeric program ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait: the operation is permanent and destructive ('Permanently delete'). Since no annotations are provided, this is crucial and well-addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an arg list. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential: permanent deletion, auth requirement, and parameter meaning. Could mention return values or error cases, but adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds a brief explanation for program_id: 'The numeric program ID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema (which just says 'integer') but is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a program' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rosh_get_program or rosh_update_program.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires API key with write scope.' This guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the Rosh language documentation — keywords, widgets, targets, and examples.
Returns the full language reference including all 25 keywords, available widgets, compile targets (web, phaser, threejs), and example programs. No API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns the full language reference and requires no API key. While not exhaustive (e.g., no side effects mentioned), it is transparent for a read-only documentation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, simple purpose, and existence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters; baseline for no params is 4. Description adds value by detailing what the documentation contains, compensating for the lack of parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get the Rosh language documentation' and specifies the contents (keywords, widgets, targets, examples), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rosh_compile or rosh_get_program.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Notes 'No API key needed' for usage context, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance. However, the purpose is straightforward and siblings are clearly different, so usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get details of a specific program by ID. Requires API key.
Args: program_id: The numeric program ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only discloses authentication requirement (API key). Does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or response details. Minimal behavioral context beyond the auth prerequisite.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus an Args section. No redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and auth requirement. Efficient use of text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema, so return values need not be explained. Description covers purpose, auth, and parameter meaning. Lacks detail on what 'details' include but is adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds 'The numeric program ID' for the single parameter, confirming type. However, schema already defines it as integer, so added value is marginal. Baseline 3 due to low coverage but simple parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get details of a specific program by ID', specifying verb (Get), resource (program details), and identifier (by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like rosh_list_programs and rosh_delete_program.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions 'Requires API key' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rosh_list_programs or rosh_show_program. Context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Hide a program from public view (moderation). Requires API key with moderate scope.
Args: identifier: Program ID (numeric) or slug (string)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (hide) and auth requirement but does not indicate whether the action is reversible, if it affects existing viewers, or any side effects. For a moderation tool, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part adds value: the action, the resource, the context, the auth requirement, and the parameter explanation. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple moderation tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, auth, and parameter. However, it omits details about output or whether the action is reversible. Given the output schema exists, the lack of output description is acceptable, but behavioral completeness could be higher.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly explains the parameter 'identifier' as 'Program ID (numeric) or slug (string)', providing format and purpose beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Hide' and resource 'program' with context 'from public view (moderation)', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like rosh_show_program, rosh_delete_program, and rosh_publish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires API key with moderate scope' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rosh_delete_program) or when not to use it. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all programs owned by the authenticated user. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'List' (implying read-only) and requires an API key, but omits details on side effects, rate limits, or pagination. For a simple list operation, it is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with zero parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and a key prerequisite. It could mention response format or error conditions, but the output schema likely handles that. Reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter details. According to guidance, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all programs owned by the authenticated user' clearly states the verb (list), resource (programs), and scope (owned by authenticated user). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'rosh_get_program' (single program) and 'rosh_hide_program' (modify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly requires an API key, providing a clear prerequisite. It implicitly suggests use when the user needs to see their own programs, but does not name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compile and publish a Rosh program to rosh.cloud. Requires API key with write scope.
The published program gets a public URL at https://rosh.cloud/p/{username}/{slug}
Args: title: Display title for the program slug: URL-safe identifier (lowercase, hyphens only, e.g. "space-shooter") code: Rosh source code target: Target platform — "web", "phaser", or "threejs" description: One-line description of what the program does
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| target | No | web | |
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the write operation and public URL output, but lacks details on destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing slug), rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is succinct with a brief intro, output note, and structured Args list. No redundant sentences or jargon; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key aspects: purpose, required auth, output URL, and parameter details. Missing explicit mention of response structure or error handling, but overall complete for a publish tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides detailed explanations for all parameters, including slug format, allowed target values, and purpose, fully compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it compiles and publishes a Rosh program to rosh.cloud, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rosh_compile (compile only) and rosh_update_program (update existing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a prerequisite (API key with write scope) and the output (public URL), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like rosh_compile or rosh_update_program.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Make a hidden program visible again. Requires API key with moderate scope.
Args: identifier: Program ID (numeric) or slug (string)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, or what happens if the program is already visible. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes only necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, one action) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or idempotency, which are expected for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying the type ('Program ID (numeric) or slug (string)'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('make a hidden program visible again') on a specific resource ('program'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rosh_hide_program.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires API key with moderate scope') and describes the identifier parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update an existing program. Only provided fields are changed. Requires API key with write scope.
Args: program_id: The numeric program ID title: New title (optional) description: New description (optional) code: New source code (optional) target: New target platform (optional)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| target | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior and write scope requirement. However, it does not address what happens when the program_id is invalid or provide error handling details, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose and prerequisites in the first two sentences, then listing parameters in a clear block format. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. An output schema exists, so the missing description of return values is less critical. The only gap is the lack of mention that the tool returns the updated program, but given the output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with clear explanations: program_id as numeric, and the optional fields (title, description, code, target) with their semantics. This fully adds meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing program', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool as the update operation among siblings like rosh_get_program, rosh_delete_program, etc., making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires API key with write scope') and clarifies that only provided fields are changed, which guides correct usage. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives from the sibling list, missing an opportunity to improve decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a unique purpose with clear verb_noun naming. Even closely related tools like compile and publish are distinct (compile generates HTML, publish additionally deploys). Hide and show are clear opposites, and CRUD operations are well separated.
All tools follow a consistent rosh_verb_noun pattern in snake_case. The naming convention is uniform across the entire tool set, making it predictable for agents.
With 9 tools, the server covers a focused domain (Rosh language management) without bloat. Each tool serves a necessary function: compilation, documentation, CRUD, and moderation. The count feels right for the scope.
The tool set appears complete for the domain: it includes compilation, publishing, full CRUD for programs, moderation (hide/show), and documentation. There are no obvious missing operations like a search or share tool, but they are not essential for core functionality.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Build, version, review, and export websites, web apps, and games from a conversation.
Build and publish websites through AI conversation.
Build, edit, and publish real websites and online stores by chatting with your AI assistant.
Build, publish and update browser games with saves, leaderboards and realtime multiplayer built in.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rosh-studio/rosh-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
