selvin-search-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose. Planning tools follow a clear phase sequence (1-6), while configuration and search tools are separate. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. However, 'web_search' is noun_verb, which is a minor deviation from the otherwise uniform naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a search server with planning capabilities. It covers all necessary phases without being too large or too small.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the entire search workflow: configuration, planning (all six phases), web search execution, and source retrieval. No obvious gaps exist for the server's stated purpose.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only describes the core action (define execution order) and the parallel_groups format. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (revision overwriting), required preconditions, or error behaviors.
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 concise: one sentence and an example. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is extremely brief and could include more context without being verbose.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of thought, confidence, is_revision, or the overall process. For a complex planning tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.
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 100%, but the description adds minimal value beyond schema descriptions. Only parallel_groups gets an example; other parameters (thought, confidence, sequential, is_revision, estimated_rounds) are not elaborated. The description's example mirrors the schema's description closely.
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 'Phase 6: Define execution order' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling planning tools (e.g., plan_intent, plan_complexity) by specifying this tool handles the ordering phase. However, it could be more explicit about the relationship to other phases.
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 implies usage in a sequential planning phase ('Phase 6') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of prerequisites like session_id.
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 must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval but does not discuss error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with invalid session_ids.
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?
Three sentences, with the first providing context that could be merged. The second and third sentences repeat similar information. Adequate but not optimally concise.
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 simplicity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main use case. It could mention potential edge cases like empty source lists, but overall 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for session_id. The description adds that the session_id comes from web_search, which is useful context, but does not go beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'cached sources for a previous web_search call'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like web_search by focusing on post-search source retrieval.
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?
Explicitly says when to use it: after web_search when needing sources. Provides context about using the session_id. Lacks explicit exclusion but context is clear.
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 exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses batch submission, validation rules (unique ids, no cycles), error on duplicate, and is_revision effect. However, missing details on result behavior (e.g., return value, idempotency).
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?
Description is well-structured with bullet points and a JSON example. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise by omitting standard validation details, but overall efficient.
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?
No output schema exists; description does not explain return values or error responses. Prerequisites are implied by required session_id from plan_intent. Missing post-submission context (e.g., success indication, session state changes).
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 already covers 100% of parameters. Description adds significant value for items_json by specifying exact JSON shape, validation constraints, and the purpose of is_revision. Other parameters (session_id, thought, confidence) are not enhanced beyond schema, but the critical parameter is well-explained.
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?
Clearly states the tool submits ALL sub-queries in one call (batch). Verb 'submit' and resource 'ALL sub-queries in ONE call' are specific. Mention of 'Phase 3' distinguishes it from earlier planning phases.
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?
Only implies phase context ('Phase 3'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No comparison to sibling tools like plan_intent or plan_execution. No guidance on choosing is_revision vs not.
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 full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints (term length, purpose reference, one term per purpose/round) and clarifies that approach and fallback_plan are strategy-level. Some behaviors like error handling or side effects are absent, but the description is sufficiently transparent given the complexity.
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 concise: a one-line summary followed by structured bullets. It front-loads the main purpose and delivers key rules efficiently. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The description thoroughly covers the core parameter (terms_json) but does not explain the purpose of other parameters like thought, confidence, or is_revision beyond what the schema provides. Given the tool's role in a workflow, some of these may be self-explanatory, but the description could add more context.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact shape of terms_json (object with term, purpose, round) and rules. It also clarifies that approach and fallback_plan are top-level params, not inside terms.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: submit all search terms in one batch call (Phase 4). It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plan_sub_query or plan_intent.
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 gives implicit usage context (Phase 4, batch submission) and provides rules for terms (≤8 words, purpose must reference sub-query id). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or when alternatives are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool controls required phases, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting with is_revision), authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavioral context is partial.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys phase, purpose, and control logic. It is front-loaded with 'Phase 2: Assess search complexity' and contains no extraneous words.
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 8 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and the tool's role in controlling execution flow, the description is adequate but minimal. It could include more details about prerequisites (e.g., session_id from plan_intent) or guidance on when to use is_revision.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on thought, justification, or other fields. The description remains at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assess search complexity (1-3)' and explains how it controls required phases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_intent and plan_execution. The verb 'assess' and resource 'search complexity' are specific.
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 implies the tool is used after plan_intent (Phase 1) and determines which subsequent phases are needed based on level. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the phase context is clear and informative.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The minimal description lacks transparency beyond the basic purpose.
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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides the exact JSON template. No wasted words.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core element (mappings_json format) but lacks information on response behavior, validation, or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing the exact JSON structure for mappings_json, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This helps the agent format the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'all sub-query → tool mappings in one call (batch)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_sub_query and plan_execution by specifying it's a batch mapping submission.
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 explicitly says 'Phase 5' and 'Submit ALL sub-query → tool mappings in ONE call', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though sibling tools give context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a session and returning a session_id, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing intent on revision, potential errors, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is implied by the schema. Moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide the complete workflow. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.
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?
While the description covers the workflow well, it lacks detail on return value format (only mentions 'Returns session_id' but no other fields) and error conditions. Given the tool creates a session and has 11 parameters, additional context on output and failure modes would improve completeness. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate.
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% with all parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameters beyond what is already present in the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Phase 1 of search planning: Analyze user intent. Call this FIRST to create a session.' This provides a specific verb (analyze), resource (user intent), and distinguishes it from sibling planning tools by being the first step.
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?
Explicitly provides the required flow: 'plan_intent → plan_complexity → plan_sub_query(×N) → plan_search_term(×N) → plan_tool_mapping(×N) → plan_execution' and specifies that phases depend on complexity levels (Level 1 = phases 1-3, Level 2 = phases 1-5, Level 3 = all 6). This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses configuration retrieval, connection testing, API key masking, and a 10-second timeout. However, it does not describe failure modes or response structure in detail.
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, well-structured with bullet points, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the tool's main functions and security. It could be more informative about error handling or response format, but it is largely complete for its purpose.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does beyond the empty schema, contextualizing its purpose and behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the current server configuration and tests upstream connectivity, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_search or get_sources by focusing on diagnostics.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use this tool first when debugging connection or configuration issues.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, along with edge cases and best practices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the change takes immediate effect, persists to ~/.config/selvin-search/config.json, and invalid model IDs may cause API errors in subsequent requests. This is complete transparency for a mutation tool.
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 'Key Features' and 'Edge Cases' sections, front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Model Selection' and 'Immediate Effect'), but every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how it persists, prerequisites (model ID from get_config_info), and consequences of invalid input. It is self-sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'model' parameter. The description adds value by linking to get_config_info for valid IDs and explaining the context (search summarization), going beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: switching the GLM-compatible model used for search summarization and persisting the setting. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the domain (search summarization) and persistent configuration, distinguishing it from informational tools like get_config_info.
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?
Explicit best practices are provided: use get_config_info to verify available models before switching, warning about invalid model IDs causing subsequent errors, and noting persistence across sessions. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses caching behavior, planning gate enforcement, return fields, and cache-hit detection, covering all major 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections, each sentence adds meaningful information without waste, and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 no output schema, describes return fields adequately. Covers planning integration, caching, and platform filtering, making it complete for a search tool in this context.
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 coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the plan_session_id gating, platform focus, and model override context, going beyond 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?
Clearly states it performs web search and caches results, distinguishing from sibling tools like get_sources which retrieves full source list.
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?
Explicitly describes the PLANNING GATE behavior and when to use empty plan_session_id for one-shot lookups, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate vs alternatives.
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:

[![GLM-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/selvinchen97-lab/GLM-search-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/selvinchen97-lab/GLM-search-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![GLM-search-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/selvinchen97-lab/GLM-search-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/selvinchen97-lab/GLM-search-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/selvinchen97-lab/GLM-search-mcp'

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