MCP Self-Learning Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as analyze_pattern for pattern analysis, export_knowledge for exporting, and get_insights for insights. However, get_insights and get_performance_metrics could be slightly overlapping, as insights might include performance data, but their descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive verbs like analyze, export, get, import, optimize, predict, and trigger. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for a self-learning server, covering key operations like analysis, knowledge management, insights, and optimization. Each tool appears to serve a specific function without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core self-learning functions, including analysis, knowledge import/export, insights, metrics, optimization, prediction, and manual triggering. A minor gap might be the lack of a tool for resetting or clearing knowledge, but overall, it supports the server's purpose effectively.
Average 2.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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. 'Import external knowledge' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the tool actually does with imported knowledge. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.
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 maximally concise at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, every word earns its place - 'import' specifies the action and 'external knowledge' specifies the resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. A mutation tool like 'import' requires information about what it does, what parameters mean, what permissions are needed, and what happens to existing knowledge. The current description provides none of this essential context for safe and effective tool invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (source, merge), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean. 'Import external knowledge' doesn't explain what 'source' should contain (URL, file path, text content?), what 'merge' controls, or how these parameters affect the import operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import external knowledge' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'import_knowledge'. While it indicates the general action (import) and resource (knowledge), it lacks specificity about what type of knowledge, from what sources, or into what system. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'export_knowledge' beyond the direction of transfer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. With sibling tools like 'analyze_pattern', 'get_insights', and 'trigger_learning' that might interact with knowledge, the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent guessing about when this import operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 but fails to do so. It does not explain whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions or authentication might be required, any rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., a prediction score, a list of actions). This lack of information makes it difficult for an agent to understand how to invoke or interpret results from the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Predict the next likely action based on context'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 2 parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an agent to reliably select, invoke, or interpret this tool, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools. The lack of output details or behavioral context makes it inadequate for practical use.
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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about 'context' (an object) or 'previousActions' (an array of strings). The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or examples of valid inputs. This leaves the agent guessing about how to structure the input data effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Predict the next likely action based on context' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'predict_next_action' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'predict' and mentions 'next likely action' and 'context', but lacks specificity about what domain or type of actions it predicts, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_pattern' or 'get_insights', which might also involve prediction or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios for its application, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'analyze_pattern' or 'get_insights' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage contexts.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, affects system state, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a 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.
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 appropriately sized for its minimal content, though the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than true conciseness.
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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what optimization suggestions include, how they're generated, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'a specific tool' which hints at the 'toolName' parameter, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid tool name, format, or scope. This fails to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get optimization suggestions for a specific tool' clearly states the action (get) and resource (optimization suggestions), but it's vague about what 'optimization suggestions' entail. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_insights' or 'get_performance_metrics', which might offer similar analytical outputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for optimization needs, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze_pattern' or 'get_performance_metrics', leaving the agent with no usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze and learn' suggests a read-only analysis and a learning/mutation component, but it doesn't clarify whether this tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output entails. The description is too vague to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action implied.
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 phrase: 'Analyze and learn from interaction patterns.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized for a brief description.
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 (1 parameter with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' and 'learn' entail operationally, what the input fields represent, or what the tool returns. For a tool with rich input structure and potential behavioral implications, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'interaction patterns,' which hints at the 'interaction' parameter in the schema, but doesn't explain what fields like 'type,' 'input,' 'output,' 'context,' 'performance,' or 'success' mean or how they should be used. With 1 parameter (a nested object with 6 sub-properties) and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value.
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 'Analyze and learn from interaction patterns' states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource or data is being analyzed. It mentions 'interaction patterns' which aligns with the input schema's 'interaction' object, but doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_insights' or 'get_performance_metrics' which might also analyze patterns. The purpose is vague but not tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_insights' and 'get_performance_metrics' that might overlap in analyzing interactions, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what specific context it serves. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit when/when-not statements.
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 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but lacks depth, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed performance metrics' entail, how they're returned, or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a tool that likely returns complex data.
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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't mention the 'timeRange' parameter or its semantics. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't. However, with only 1 parameter and an enum providing some clarity, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does minimal 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 'Get detailed performance metrics' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('performance metrics'), but it's vague about what specific metrics are retrieved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_insights' or 'analyze_pattern'. It provides a basic purpose 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_insights' or 'analyze_pattern'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the tool name.
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. 'Export' implies a read operation that outputs data, but the description doesn't specify what 'export' entails (e.g., file generation, data transfer, permissions required, or potential side effects). It lacks details on output format beyond the schema's enum, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with minimal parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the exported knowledge base contains, how it's structured, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its behavior and output.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't add specific parameter details, but it implicitly relates to the 'format' parameter by mentioning 'Export'. Since there's only one parameter and the schema defines it clearly with enum values, the description doesn't need to compensate heavily, earning a baseline score above minimum.
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 'Export current knowledge base' states a clear verb ('Export') and resource ('current knowledge base'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'knowledge base' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'import_knowledge' or 'get_insights' beyond the basic action.
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 when to export versus analyze, get insights, or import knowledge, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get learning insights and recommendations') without describing what 'insights' means, whether this is a read-only operation, what format results come in, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.
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 appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 'insights and recommendations' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'insights', what format they come in, or how they differ from sibling tools' outputs, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand what this tool actually returns.
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 compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, earning a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get learning insights and recommendations', which is a clear verb+object combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_performance_metrics' or 'analyze_pattern', leaving ambiguity about what specific type of insights this provides versus alternatives.
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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is appropriate versus siblings like 'get_performance_metrics' or 'predict_next_action'.
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 indicates a manual action ('trigger') but doesn't specify whether this initiates a background process, requires specific permissions, has side effects like data modification, or what the expected outcome or duration is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves system changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with every word earning its place.
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 implied by 'learning cycle' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after triggering, potential impacts, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param details, aligning with the schema's completeness. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids redundancy.
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 'Manually trigger a learning cycle' clearly states the action (trigger) and target (learning cycle), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'learning cycle' entails and doesn't differentiate this tool from siblings like 'optimize_tool' or 'analyze_pattern' which might involve related learning processes. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.
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 'optimize_tool' or 'import_knowledge', nor does it mention prerequisites, timing, or context for triggering a learning cycle. It's a standalone statement with implied usage but no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-self-learning-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saralegui-solutions/mcp-self-learning-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saralegui-solutions/mcp-self-learning-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-self-learning-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saralegui-solutions/mcp-self-learning-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/saralegui-solutions/mcp-self-learning-server)

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/saralegui-solutions/mcp-self-learning-server'

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