MCP Toolkit Server

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 purpose: HTTP requests, math, SQL, file operations, datetime, environment, JSON parsing, text transformation. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names use snake_case consistently, with a verb_noun pattern for most (file_list, file_read, file_write, get_datetime, get_environment) and simple nouns for others (calculator, json_parser). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is an appropriate size for a general-purpose utility toolkit, covering diverse common operations without being unwieldy or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers majority of common utility tasks: HTTP, math, SQL, file I/O, datetime, environment, JSON, text transforms. Missing a file delete tool and more advanced date or CSV operations, but overall solid for the toolkit domain.
Average 4.3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it lists the return formats and states no parameters are required. However, it does not explain behavior when an invalid timezone is provided or when the timezone parameter is omitted (defaults to server time). The return format details are good.
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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet-style list of return types is easy to scan. One minor inefficiency: the phrase 'This tool does not require any parameters' could be replaced with mentioning the optional parameter, but overall it's 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return types. However, it misses context about default timezone behavior, error handling, and the optional parameter itself. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.
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 100% coverage with a clear description for the optional 'timezone' parameter. However, the tool description states 'This tool does not require any parameters,' which, while technically true, is misleading by omission because it fails to mention the optional timezone parameter. This adds confusion rather than value.
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: 'Get the current date and time in various formats.' It lists specific return types (ISO 8601, Unix timestamp, components), making the functionality unambiguous. Among siblings, no other tool provides datetime, so differentiation is clear.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious (retrieving current datetime), no guidance is given on cases where timezone specification might be needed or that alternatives like get_environment might provide system time. Usage is implied but not articulated.
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 the full burden. It mentions returning file sizes and types, but does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., permission errors, large directories, missing paths) or whether results are sorted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with distinct sections for features and use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the bullet points make it scannable. No unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and returns (sizes and types), but does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of objects). It is complete enough for a simple listing tool but could be more detailed.
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, so the schema already documents parameters clearly. The description repeats parameter names in features but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (files and directories at a given path). It distinguishes itself from siblings like file_read and file_write by focusing on directory listing, and includes specific features like recursive depth and extension filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases (exploring, finding, auditing) which imply when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would strengthen 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 provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses automatic parent directory creation, overwrite behavior, and encoding support (default UTF-8). Missing details on permissions or error handling, but adequate for typical usage.
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?
Well-structured with a one-line summary, then Features and Use cases in bullet points. Could be slightly more concise by merging use cases into a sentence, but overall efficient.
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?
For a simple write tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, features, and use cases adequately. Missing error handling or edge cases, but not critical for typical scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only states 'Supports any text encoding' which repeats the default.
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?
Description clearly states 'Write content to a file on the local filesystem' – a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like file_read and file_list.
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?
Lists concrete use cases (saving generated code, configs, log files, reports/exports) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with alternatives like api_call or db_query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported methods, custom headers, body types, query parameters, configurable timeout, and response components (status, headers, body). However, it omits details on error handling, redirects, and authentication, which are important for an HTTP tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: opening sentence states purpose, followed by bulleted features and use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of 'status code, headers, and body' provides essential but minimal output structure. It covers input features thoroughly. Slightly more detail on output format or error cases would improve 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. The description adds overall context (e.g., supported features, body sent as application/json) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Make an HTTP request to any external API endpoint and return the response.' It lists supported HTTP methods, features, and use cases, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools (e.g., calculator, db_query) which serve different internal functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases (fetching REST APIs, webhooks, third-party services) implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.
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?
Without annotations, the description discloses behaviors: reads entire file or byte range (though byte range param missing), automatic encoding detection, returns metadata, and security restrictions. The mention of byte range is inconsistent with the schema, slightly reducing clarity.
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 features and security bullet points. It is front-loaded but includes some redundancy (e.g., headers repeat purpose). Still efficient for the information provided.
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 output schema, the description mentions return of metadata (size, last modified). It covers reading behavior and security. Lacks details on error handling or size limits, but is reasonably complete for a simple file read tool.
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 descriptions. The description adds context by noting default encoding and the ability to read byte ranges (even if not parameterized), providing value beyond the schema.
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 reads file contents from the local filesystem. The verb 'Read' and resource 'file' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_write and file_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides features and security constraints, implying when to use (to read a text file). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. Discloses security restrictions, return format, and mode-specific behaviors. Could mention if any side effects occur, but overall transparent.
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 (modes, security, returns). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Comprehensively covers parameters, modes, security, and return format. With no output schema, the description explains the output structure, making it complete for selecting and invoking the tool.
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. Description adds context about modes and security beyond schema, explaining how 'explore' and 'file' modes behave, which aids parameter understanding.
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 executes SQL queries against SQLite databases with two modes ('explore' and 'file'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'api_call' and 'calculator' as a database query tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies when to use each mode and outlines security restrictions (allowed SQL statements per mode). Does not explicitly mention when to avoid using the tool, but the sibling list and context are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No sensitive environment variables or secrets are exposed,' which is important safety information. It also enumerates return categories, aiding understanding of tool behavior. No contradictions or omissions noted.
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: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then bullet-like list of returns, then a clarifying note about safety. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 environment inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key return categories (OS, Node.js, process, CPU, memory, hostname) and the safety guarantee. No gaps are apparent given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explicitly confirming no parameters are required, which reinforces the schema. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and this is met.
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 'Get information about the current server environment' and lists specific categories of returned data (OS, Node.js, process, CPU, memory, hostname). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_datetime' or 'calculator'.
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 notes 'This tool does not require any parameters,' which is a key usage detail. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings, though the purpose is clear and the context implies it's for environment introspection.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the outcomes for each operation (e.g., pretty-printed object for parse, extraction for query, validation result, summary for summarize) and provides examples. It does not cover error handling (e.g., malformed JSON) or performance, which is a minor gap.
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, with a clear opening sentence followed by a well-structured list of modes and examples. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains each mode's return, path notation, and provides examples. However, it does not clarify that 'path' is only relevant for query mode (though implied) or describe error behavior for invalid inputs, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description significantly enriches understanding: it explains the enum 'operation' with four distinct modes, clarifies the dot-notation for 'path', and provides concrete examples demonstrating how parameters interact. The schema descriptions are minimal, so the description adds substantial value.
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 starts with 'Parse, validate, and query JSON data', immediately stating the tool's resource (JSON data) and action verbs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like text_transform, which handle general text transformations, by focusing specifically on JSON operations.
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 lists four modes (parse, query, validate, summarize) with specific use cases and examples for each, guiding the agent on when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among sibling tools, which would push it to a 5.
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?
No annotations are provided, but the description thoroughly explains each operation's behavior, including edge cases like 'slug' (URL-safe slug) and 'hash' (character frequency). There is no contradiction with missing annotations.
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 a clear opening line followed by a bulleted list. While it is somewhat lengthy due to the number of operations, each sentence serves a purpose. It is efficient for the content provided.
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?
The tool lacks an output schema, but the description implies the return type (transformed text) for most operations. However, for operations like 'word_count' or 'extract_emails', the exact return format is not specified, leaving minor ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds significant value by enumerating the valid operations and briefly explaining each. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'see list above' reference.
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 transforms text using various operations, listing 17 specific operations. This is specific, action-oriented, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (none of which are text transformation tools).
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 lists all supported operations, making it clear what can be done. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. Nevertheless, the siblings are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.
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?
The description discloses safety (no eval, safe parser), supported operations, and rejection of non-mathematical input. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so well.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose, organized sections for operations, safety, and examples. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The description is largely complete but does not explicitly state the return type (number). Given the simplicity of the tool, this omission is minor but prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds extensive meaning beyond the schema: it lists supported operations, functions, constants, and provides examples. The schema only describes the parameter as a string, while the description enriches it with context.
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 evaluates mathematical expressions and returns a result. It is distinct from siblings which handle API calls, database queries, file operations, etc.
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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (for math problems) and gives safety guidelines. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when not to use it.
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-toolkit-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vyshnavi-nandyala/mcp-toolkit-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vyshnavi-nandyala/mcp-toolkit-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-toolkit-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vyshnavi-nandyala/mcp-toolkit-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/vyshnavi-nandyala/mcp-toolkit-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vyshnavi-nandyala/mcp-toolkit-server'

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