virtualization-mcp

by sandraschi

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.3.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are grouped by distinct domains (network, storage, VM lifecycle, etc.), but the portmanteau pattern centralizes multiple operations into one tool via an 'action' parameter, which could cause minor confusion. However, descriptions are clear and domains are well-separated.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a '_management' suffix pattern, but 'info_tools' and 'vm_agentic_workflow' deviate. The naming is not strictly verb_noun but is readable and predictable once the pattern is understood.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools cover the major aspects of virtualization (VMs, storage, network, snapshots, sandbox, system info, Proxmox, agentic workflows). The count is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers VM lifecycle, storage, network, snapshots, sandbox execution, and system diagnostics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool for advanced network configuration), but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 21, 2026
- 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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It lists operations like stop_vm (hard-stop) and delete_snapshot, which are destructive, but does not flag them as such or mention authorization needs, side effects, or idempotency. The return format is given, but behavioral warnings are missing.
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 structured with sections for operations, return format, and examples, which aids readability. However, it includes a redundant 'RATIONALE' label and is longer than necessary, containing some redundant phrasing.
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 (9 parameters, multiple operations) and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers operations and return format but fails to explain non-trivial parameters like iso, cores, memory, and disk_size, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. The description only covers 'operation' and 'vmid' via examples, leaving iso, name, cores, memory, disk_size, description, and snapshot_name unexplained. This severely limits 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 explicitly states it is a consolidated tool for all remote Proxmox operations and lists 10 specific operations, making the purpose clear. However, it does not directly differentiate from sibling tools like vm_management or snapshot_management, which may overlap.
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 only mentions the prerequisite of PROXMOX_HOST being configured but provides no guidance on when to use this consolidated tool versus the more specific sibling tools, nor any scenarios where the tool should not be used.
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?
The description reveals that the tool is a portmanteau (multiplexed), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, side effects, or required permissions. For a tool with destructive actions (e.g., remove_controller), 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes redundant listing of actions already in schema. The term 'portmanteau' adds clutter. Could be more efficient without losing clarity.
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 (9 parameters, conditional dependency on action), the description is too high-level. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, conditional requirements beyond the schema, or output behavior, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (78%) and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds little beyond saying to use the 'action' parameter, so it meets baseline but doesn't compensate for remaining gaps.
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 identifies the tool as a storage management portmanteau and lists operations, making it clear it handles storage tasks. However, the phrase 'portmanteau tool' is jargon and the purpose isn't stated with a single precise verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for any storage operation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. Since there are no sibling storage tools, no exclusions are needed, but the description could be more direct.
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. It discloses that actions use ctx.sample() with fallback, but does not mention potential destructive side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or safety implications of the workflow actions.
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 well-structured with bullet points for each action, making it easy to read. It is relatively concise but could be slightly more succinct without losing key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (three actions, multiple parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the 'goal' and 'use_case' parameters (e.g., 'what dangerous/experimental work to do' for sandbox_workflow). However, it completely omits the 'vm_name' parameter from the description, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 that the tool provides sampling-backed agentic operations for virtualization, listing three actions with brief explanations. It distinguishes from siblings like vm_management by focusing on workflow orchestration rather than direct VM management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when agentic, sampling-based workflows are desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., vm_management for direct operations). It mentions fallback behavior but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that restore/delete are destructive, may cause downtime, or require VM power state conditions. This gap reduces transparency.
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 four sentences, front-loading purpose and structure. It is efficient, though the last sentence could be integrated into the parameter descriptions.
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 multi-action nature, the description is adequate but lacks prerequisities (e.g., VM existence, required states for restore) and does not leverage the presence of an output schema to clarify return types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'All actions require vm_name'). The description does not clarify semantics like default limits or edge cases.
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 identifies the tool as comprehensive snapshot management for VMs, consolidating multiple operations (list, create, restore, delete). It differentiates from sibling tools like vm_management by focusing solely on snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description instructs to use the 'action' parameter to specify operation, but does not contrast with sibling tools like vm_management, nor does it specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-snapshot VM tasks).
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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as consolidating operations but does not mention side effects, destructive potential, or safety characteristics. The listed actions appear to be read-only, but this is not stated. More transparency is needed.
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 main description is only two sentences, clearly stating the tool's consolidated nature and how to use it. It is front-loaded and efficient. The term 'portmanteau' is concise though possibly jargon. Overall, no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a multi-action tool, with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It highlights the action parameter and vm_name requirements. However, it could better explain the rationale for consolidation or when to use specific actions. Still, completeness is high.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a summary about the action parameter and vm_name requirement, but this does not significantly exceed what the schema already explains. The tool description itself does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema.
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 it is a 'comprehensive system management portmanteau tool' that consolidates system information and diagnostics. The list of actions via the 'action' parameter makes the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vm_management' which focus on VM operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to use the 'action' parameter and notes that most actions don't require vm_name. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like 'info_tools'. The schema's action descriptions give per-action requirements, but no broader alternative comparison.
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 full burden. It mentions actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as which actions are destructive (e.g., remove) or require specific permissions. Lacks warnings about side effects.
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 short (two sentences) and to the point. It could be improved by front-loading the most important guidance, but it is still concise and readable.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, given the complexity (5 actions, 9 parameters), the description is minimal and does not provide usage examples or clarify parameter dependencies beyond the action enum descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (78%) and the schema includes detailed descriptions for each action, especially for the 'action' parameter. The description adds little beyond 'Use the action parameter to specify which operation to perform', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.
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 it is a comprehensive network management tool consolidating all network operations, and lists the actions via the 'action' parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for other domains (info, sandbox, etc.). However, being a portmanteau tool reduces focus slightly.
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 instructs to use the 'action' parameter to specify the operation. Since it is the only network tool among siblings, no when-not-to-use is needed, but explicit context is provided.
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 present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversibility of delete), concurrency behavior, or authorization needs. The description focuses on parameter rules rather than broader behavioral traits.
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 efficient, using one paragraph to cover purpose, actions, alternative tool, and parameter requirements. It front-loads the core purpose and lists actions clearly. Minor improvement could be using bullet points for readability, but the structure is logical and not verbose.
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 has 10 parameters, an output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers essential parameter combinations but omits explanation of pagination parameters (limit, offset) and the use_case field. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing parameter descriptions lower completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains that vm_name is required for most actions, clone requires source_vm+new_vm_name, and create requires os_type/memory/disk. It also directs users to system_management for valid os_type values. However, use_case, limit, and offset are not described.
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 'Virtual machine lifecycle management' and lists all supported actions (list, create, start, etc.), making the tool's purpose highly specific. It distinguishes itself from the sibling vm_agentic_workflow by explicitly directing LLM config and sandbox planning to that tool.
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 guidelines on when to use vm_agentic_workflow instead, and explains parameter requirements per action (e.g., clone needs source_vm+new_vm_name, create needs os_type/memory/disk). However, it does not mention when to use sibling tools like snapshot_management or network_management, so some alternatives are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively conveys behavioral traits: isolated execution, auto-removal for ephemeral, persistence for stateful sessions. It adds value by outlining the two execution modes and the requirement for Docker.
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, using just a few sentences to convey purpose, prerequisites, and execution modes. It front-loads the core function and avoids unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, many actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It covers the overall purpose, prerequisites, and mode classification, but could include a note on error behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context for parameters (like grouping actions) but does not add new semantic info beyond the already detailed schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for Docker-based code sandbox management, specifying safe isolated execution. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like info_tools or network_management by focusing on code execution and session management.
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 a key prerequisite (Docker Desktop running) and explains when to use ephemeral vs stateful modes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool consolidates operations, is separate from MCP, and behaves differently in testing mode. It also notes that schemas are auto-generated. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though that is implied by its nature.
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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses bullet points under the 'action' parameter to detail each operation. The note at the end is important and doesn't waste words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to scan for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, optional parameters, and an output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return values for each action, explains the testing mode distinction, and provides valid parameter values. No significant gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial value beyond the schema. For the 'action' parameter, it explains each enum value's purpose, required parameters, and what the tool returns. For optional parameters like 'category' and 'search', it provides valid values and usage context. This greatly aids an agent in selecting the correct action and parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that the tool is a 'Comprehensive tool discovery and help portmanteau tool' that provides information about available tools, their operations, and usage. It clearly differentiates itself from the MCP protocol's native tools/list method, establishing a distinct purpose from sibling management 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 explains that the tool is for app-specific help content and detailed introspection, separate from MCP's native tools/list. It also details each action and when to use them, including required parameters and optional filters. This clear differentiation helps an agent choose correctly.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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