Rentcast MCP 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, but there is some overlap between get_property_details and get_property_value, as both involve property estimation, which could cause confusion. Tools like get_rental_listings and get_sale_listings are clearly separated by transaction type, and analyze_market stands out for broader trends.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, such as analyze_market, get_property_details, and search_properties. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and navigate the toolset without naming confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for real estate data analysis, covering key areas like market trends, property details, valuations, listings, and searches. Each tool serves a specific function without redundancy, fitting the domain appropriately.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for real estate data, including market analysis, property details, valuations, and listings for both rental and sale. A minor gap is the lack of tools for updating or managing data (e.g., CRUD operations), but core retrieval and analysis functions are well-covered for agent workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'comprehensive' entails (e.g., time range, metrics included). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves complex data retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (market analysis with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive market statistics and trends' includes, potential limitations, or response format, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based filtering, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive market statistics and trends'), and specifies the scope ('for specific locations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rent_estimates' or 'search_properties' that might also provide market-related data, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'get_rent_estimates' or 'get_sale_listings', leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.
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 this is for 'automated property value estimates' but doesn't explain how the estimates are generated, whether they're real-time or cached, what data sources are used, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of property valuation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., estimated value range, confidence scores, comparable properties details), leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that inputs relate to 'property value estimates', so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any schema 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 clearly states the action ('Get automated property value estimates') and the resource ('with comparable properties'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_rent_estimates' or 'analyze_market', which might also provide property-related estimates.
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 'get_rent_estimates' or 'get_property_details'. It mentions 'comparable properties' but doesn't clarify if this is for sales, rentals, or general valuation, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'helps you estimate' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns confidence intervals, or how 'comparable rental properties' are selected. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for an agent to use it effectively.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence could be slightly more precise about what 'helps you estimate' entails.
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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., estimated rent range, comparables list), behavioral constraints, or how parameters interact (e.g., whether address or latitude/longitude is prioritized). For a tool with rich input schema but no other structured context, the description should provide more operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'location, property characteristics, and market data' which loosely corresponds to parameters like address/latitude/longitude, bedrooms/bathrooms/squareFootage/propertyType, but doesn't provide additional semantics, constraints, or usage guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Get long-term rent estimates with comparable rental properties' and 'estimate monthly rental prices for properties'. It specifies the action (get/estimate), resource (rent estimates), and scope (long-term, with comparables). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_property_value' or 'get_rental_listings', which likely provide different types of property data.
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 mentions 'helps you estimate monthly rental prices' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools like 'get_property_value' (which might estimate sale value) or 'get_rental_listings' (which might show actual listings). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 only mentions it 'searches' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with partial matches. The 'comprehensive property information' phrase is vague about what's included.
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?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose. The first sentence establishes the tool's function, and the second clarifies the search scope. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with usage guidance.
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?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive property information' includes, how results are formatted, whether all parameters are optional, or how the search behaves with multiple location parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'sale listings' with the purpose 'searches for properties currently for sale'. It distinguishes from rental listings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-related siblings like search_properties or get_random_properties.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_properties, get_random_properties, or get_rental_listings. The description only states what it does without providing context about when it's the appropriate choice among the seven sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'prepare parameters for property value estimation,' hinting at a preparatory or intermediate step, but fails to clarify if this is a read-only operation, what data it returns (e.g., structured details vs. raw parameters), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential downstream effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed property information') and adds secondary purpose ('prepare parameters for property value estimation') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return format, error handling) and usage context, which are needed for full completeness. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at what 'detailed property information' entails, but it doesn't, leaving room for improvement.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' well-documented as 'Property or listing ID for detailed information.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verbs ('Get detailed property information' and 'prepare parameters for property value estimation'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_property_value' (which likely returns the value itself) and 'search_properties' (which likely returns a list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_rental_listings' might also provide property details), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_property_value' (for actual value estimation) or 'search_properties' (for broader searches), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches for properties', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'comprehensive property information' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the phrase 'comprehensive property information' is vague and could be more specific to improve clarity without adding length.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and complex search functionality. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, fields), error cases, and behavioral constraints like rate limits or authentication, which are essential for an agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (city, limit, state, zipCode). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as how parameters interact or search logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rental listings'), and distinguishes it from sale listings by specifying 'for rent'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_properties' or 'get_random_properties', which might also retrieve rental listings.
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 for searching rental properties, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_properties' or 'get_sale_listings'. It mentions 'currently for rent', which gives some context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about default and max limits (15/50 for free tier) and notes that price data may not be unavailable, which helps set expectations. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a search 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and included fields, the second adds important behavioral notes. It's front-loaded with core functionality and avoids redundancy. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the limit info more seamlessly, but overall it's 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?
Given 7 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a search tool but has gaps. It covers return fields and data limitations (price availability), but lacks details on result format, error cases, or how results are ordered. Without annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral transparency for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description lists example fields returned (city, state, bedrooms, etc.), which adds marginal value by clarifying the output scope, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 searches for properties with basic property information, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'properties'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_property_details' or 'get_sale_listings' by focusing on search functionality with basic info, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.
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 'get_sale_listings' or 'get_rental_listings'. It mentions a default and max limit for free tier users, but this is a behavioral constraint rather than usage context. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are included.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'random properties', includes 'comprehensive info' like 'price history, lot size, and year built', and mentions rate limits ('max: 50 for free tier'). However, it doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details like defaults and limits. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from parameter info.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a tool with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage. It covers purpose, key behavior, and parameter hints, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or deeper usage scenarios, which would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the 'limit' parameter's default and max values, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as how 'city', 'state', and 'zipCode' interact or affect randomness.
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: 'Get random properties with comprehensive info' for 'market analysis'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('random properties'), and scope ('market analysis'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_properties' or 'get_property_details' beyond the 'random' aspect.
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 for 'market analysis' and mentions default/max limits, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_properties' or 'get_property_details'. It hints at context with 'free tier' but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.
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_rentcast MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tandat8503/mcp_rentcast/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tandat8503/mcp_rentcast)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_rentcast MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tandat8503/mcp_rentcast/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tandat8503/mcp_rentcast)

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/tandat8503/mcp_rentcast'

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