MCP Multi-Tool Server

by vipankumar87

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct mathematical operation with no overlap in purpose. For example, 'add' and 'subtract' are complementary but not ambiguous, and 'factorial' and 'power' serve unique functions. An agent can easily differentiate between them based on their specific descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tool names are mostly consistent, using clear verb-based or descriptive terms like 'add', 'multiply', and 'square_root'. However, there is a minor deviation with 'calculate_percentage' which is more verbose compared to others like 'divide' or 'power', slightly breaking the pattern but still maintaining readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, this server is well-scoped for a basic mathematical operations toolkit. Each tool earns its place by covering fundamental arithmetic and mathematical functions, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and specialized operations like factorial and square root, without being overly complex or sparse.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for basic mathematical operations, including all core arithmetic (add, subtract, multiply, divide) and common functions (percentage, factorial, power, square root). There are no obvious gaps for this domain, as it supports a wide range of calculations an agent might need without dead ends.
Average 3/5 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 states the action ('calculate') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), performance characteristics, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety or operational hints.
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, 'Calculate a percentage of a value.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the calculation is performed (e.g., formula: value * percentage/100), what the output looks like, or any edge cases. For a basic math tool, this leaves too much ambiguity for reliable agent use.
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. It mentions 'percentage of a value', which hints at the two parameters ('value' and 'percentage'), but doesn't clarify their semantics, such as whether 'percentage' is a decimal (e.g., 0.1) or a whole number (e.g., 10), or the expected output format. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.
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 'Calculate a percentage of a value' states what the tool does with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('percentage of a value'), but it's somewhat vague about the exact operation. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'multiply' or 'divide', which could also be used for percentage calculations, though the name 'calculate_percentage' provides some differentiation.
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. Given siblings like 'multiply' and 'divide' that could handle percentage calculations, there's no indication of when this specialized tool is preferred, such as for direct percentage formulas or simplified input handling. This leaves usage context implied at best.
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 states the mathematical operation but doesn't cover important traits like error handling (e.g., for negative bases with fractional exponents), performance characteristics, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic function.
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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple mathematical tool, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's low complexity (basic math operation), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., that it outputs a number), error cases, or how it fits among sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a number' and 'a power,' which loosely maps to the 'base' and 'exponent' parameters, but doesn't explain their roles, constraints (e.g., valid ranges), or interactions. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferred from the schema titles, failing to adequately address the coverage gap.
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 'Raise a number to a power' clearly states the verb ('raise') and resource ('a number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling mathematical operations like 'factorial' or 'square_root' beyond the basic mathematical concept, 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 like 'square_root' (which is a special case of exponentiation) or 'factorial' (which involves repeated multiplication). There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal contextual 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. It only states the multiplication action without mentioning any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., overflow), input constraints (e.g., integer vs. decimal), or output format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or parameter details, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent in selecting and invoking the tool correctly, especially compared to more complex siblings.
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 description implies two parameters ('two numbers') but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides, such as parameter roles or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details, but since there are only two straightforward parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for minimal adequacy.
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 as 'Multiply two numbers together,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' or 'divide' by specifying multiplication, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation in the text.
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 'power' or 'factorial.' It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.
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 ('calculate'), but doesn't mention important traits: whether it handles negative inputs (returns error, NaN, or complex numbers), precision/rounding behavior, performance characteristics, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for a mathematical operation.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns 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 mathematical nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: error handling for negative inputs, return value format (number, object with error?), precision, or mathematical domain constraints. For a tool that could have edge cases with negative numbers, this leaves too much undefined.
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 has 0% description coverage (parameter 'x' has no description in schema), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'x' represents 'a number' for square root calculation, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't provide constraints (e.g., non-negative requirement) or examples, leaving ambiguity about valid input ranges.
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 ('calculate') and resource ('square root of a number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add' or 'power' by specifying the mathematical operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar operations like 'power' with exponent 0.5, which would make it a perfect 5.
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 prefer this over using 'power' with exponent 0.5, nor does it specify any prerequisites like handling negative numbers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., division by zero), precision of results, or whether it returns integers or floats. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 low complexity (basic arithmetic) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the core operation but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases or result format. For a simple tool, this might be adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that parameter 'a' is the 'first number' (dividend) and 'b' is the 'second number' (divisor), which clarifies the order and role beyond the generic schema titles 'A' and 'B'. However, it doesn't explain data types, constraints, or examples.
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 ('divide') and the resources ('first number', 'second number'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_percentage' or 'square_root' which might also involve division operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'calculate_percentage' (which might handle division with percentage calculations) or 'multiply' (for inverse operations). There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 states the action ('add two numbers together') but doesn't cover traits like error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance, or output format. This is a basic description with significant gaps for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Add two numbers together.' It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
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 low complexity (basic arithmetic), no annotations, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. For such a simple tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could be addressed with 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by clarifying that parameters 'a' and 'b' are numbers to be added. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions by specifying their role in the operation. Since there are only two parameters and their purpose is clear, this is adequate.
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: 'Add two numbers together.' It specifies the verb ('add') and the resource ('two numbers'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_percentage' or 'multiply', though the operation is inherently distinct.
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 sibling tools like 'subtract' or 'multiply', nor does it specify contexts where addition is preferred over other operations. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 operation ('calculate') and constraint ('non-negative integer'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling for invalid inputs, computational limits, or output format. For a mathematical tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple mathematical function and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter constraint but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in varied contexts.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it specifies that parameter 'n' must be a 'non-negative integer,' which clarifies the semantic constraint not evident in the schema's type definition alone. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive detail.
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: 'Calculate the factorial of a non-negative integer.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('factorial'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling mathematical tools like 'power' or 'multiply' beyond the mathematical operation itself.
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 'power' or other mathematical operations. It mentions 'non-negative integer' as a constraint, but this is more of a parameter requirement than usage context. No explicit when/when-not 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.
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 only states the basic operation without mentioning any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for non-numeric inputs), performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it leaves the agent without crucial operational context.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence: 'Subtract the second number from the first number.' Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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 low complexity (simple arithmetic), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with clarified semantics in the description, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context, which could be important for robust agent interaction. It meets the baseline for such a simple tool but doesn't excel.
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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema defines parameters 'a' and 'b' as numbers without descriptions (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that 'a' is the first number and 'b' is the second number to subtract from it. This compensates well for the low schema coverage by explaining the order and role of parameters, though it doesn't detail constraints like integer vs. float.
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: 'Subtract the second number from the first number.' This is a specific verb (subtract) applied to resources (numbers), making the operation unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide' beyond the inherent meaning of subtraction, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.
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 sibling tools like 'add' or 'divide', nor does it specify contexts where subtraction is preferred over other operations. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its utility for an AI agent in selecting among multiple arithmetic tools.
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-Example MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vipankumar87/MCP-Example/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vipankumar87/MCP-Example)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-Example MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vipankumar87/MCP-Example/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vipankumar87/MCP-Example)

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/vipankumar87/MCP-Example'

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