star

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools target specific resources like zodiacs, compatibility, horoscopes, and rising signs, with clear action distinctions (e.g., get_all_zodiacs vs. get_zodiac_info). No overlap exists that could cause misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, starting with 'get_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase (e.g., get_daily_horoscope, get_rising_sign). This predictable naming makes the set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for the astrology domain, covering core operations like zodiac lookup, compatibility analysis, horoscopes, and rising sign calculations. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for astrology queries, including CRUD-like operations (e.g., get zodiac info, list zodiacs) and specialized functions (e.g., compatibility, horoscopes). A minor gap exists in update/delete operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only domain, and agents can work around it effectively.
Average 2.8/5 across 7 of 7 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
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('get daily horoscope') without any information about permissions, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for the 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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality. 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide enough parameter guidance. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, it should do more to help the agent understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions '指定星座' (specified zodiac), which hints at the 'zodiac' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'category' parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving one parameter completely undocumented and the other only partially explained.
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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('今日运势' meaning 'daily horoscope') with the specific scope of '指定星座' (specified zodiac). It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_zodiacs (lists zodiacs) and get_zodiac_info (gets zodiac information) by focusing on daily horoscope retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_compatibility or get_rising_sign, which serve different purposes.
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-not scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with siblings like get_zodiac_by_date (which might retrieve horoscopes by date rather than 'today'). The agent must infer usage from the name and 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves compatibility analysis, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., numerical index, textual analysis). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a notable shortfall.
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: '获取两个星座的配对指数和关系分析'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial details: no usage guidelines, minimal parameter semantics, and no behavioral transparency. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context (e.g., output format, error cases) to be fully helpful for an AI agent.
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 2 parameters (zodiac1, zodiac2) with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond implying two zodiac inputs—it doesn't explain what 'zodiac1' and 'zodiac2' represent (e.g., zodiac signs in Chinese or English, format constraints), leaving parameters largely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the low 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: '获取两个星座的配对指数和关系分析' (Get compatibility index and relationship analysis for two zodiac signs). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('配对指数和关系分析' - compatibility index and relationship analysis), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_rising_sign_info', which might provide different types of zodiac information.
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 'get_all_zodiacs' (which might list zodiacs) or 'get_daily_horoscope' (which might provide daily predictions), leaving the agent to infer usage context. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, which is a significant gap.
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 what the tool does (calculates rising sign) but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, computational characteristics, or any side effects. For a calculation tool with 7 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that states the purpose and required inputs. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function followed by parameter requirements, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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 (7 required parameters for astrological calculation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a rising sign is, the calculation methodology, output format, or error handling. For a specialized calculation tool, this leaves too many contextual gaps for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions '需要出生时间、地点和日期' (requires birth time, location, and date), which maps to the 7 parameters at a high level but provides no details about units (e.g., hour format, coordinate system), ranges, or relationships between parameters. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what parameter names suggest.
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 '计算上升星座' (calculate rising sign) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_zodiac_by_date or get_daily_horoscope by focusing on astrological calculation rather than general zodiac information or horoscopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_rising_sign_info, which might provide information about rising signs rather than calculating them.
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 get_rising_sign_info (which might provide information rather than calculation) or get_zodiac_by_date (which might determine sun sign). There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions for this calculation tool.
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 what the tool does without mentioning any traits like read-only status, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it highly concise and well-structured for its intended use.
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 a tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and output format, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'risingSign' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'risingSign' represents, valid values, or format. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, resulting in a poor score.
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 '获取' (get) and the resource '指定上升星座的详细信息' (detailed information of a specified rising sign), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_rising_sign' or 'get_zodiac_info', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, so it misses 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. With siblings like 'get_rising_sign' and 'get_zodiac_info' available, it lacks explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'determines' a zodiac sign, implying a read-only lookup, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., for invalid dates), output format (e.g., string name or object), or any rate limits or authentication needs. 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: '根据出生日期确定星座' (determine zodiac sign based on birth date). It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action and input.
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 states what the tool does but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits (e.g., error handling), and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide the agent, but it doesn't compensate for these gaps.
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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions '出生日期' (birth date) but doesn't explain the 'month' and 'day' parameters beyond that, such as valid ranges (e.g., 1-12 for month, 1-31 for day) or format expectations (e.g., integer vs. string). It adds minimal semantic value over the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low 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: '根据出生日期确定星座' (determine zodiac sign based on birth date). It specifies the verb '确定' (determine) and resource '星座' (zodiac sign), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_rising_sign', which might provide different types of zodiac-related information.
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 siblings such as 'get_zodiac_info' (which might give detailed zodiac characteristics) or 'get_rising_sign' (which calculates a different astrological aspect), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.
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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('获取' - get), it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling (what happens if an invalid zodiac name is provided), response format, whether it's cached, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 - a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists the types of information returned. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by examples of what information is included.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address key contextual elements: what format the zodiac parameter expects, what the response structure looks like, how errors are handled, or how this tool differs from its siblings. For a tool in an ecosystem with multiple similar zodiac-related tools, more contextual information is needed.
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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information about the 'zodiac' parameter. The description mentions '指定星座' (specified zodiac) but doesn't clarify what format the zodiac name should be in (Chinese vs. English, full names vs. abbreviations), what values are valid, or provide examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name.
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: '获取指定星座的详细信息，包括性格特征、守护星、元素等' (Get detailed information about a specified zodiac sign, including personality traits, ruling planet, element, etc.). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '星座的详细信息' (detailed zodiac information), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_by_date' or 'get_rising_sign_info' which might provide similar information through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_zodiac_by_date' (which might retrieve zodiac info by date rather than name), 'get_all_zodiacs' (which likely lists all zodiacs), and 'get_rising_sign_info' (which might provide different astrological data), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
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 what the tool does ('获取所有星座的基本信息列表'), without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: '获取所有星座的基本信息列表'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, 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 complexity (a list retrieval tool with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes, how the list is structured (e.g., array of objects), or any behavioral context like error handling. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. No additional value is required beyond stating the tool's purpose.
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: '获取所有星座的基本信息列表' (Get a list of basic information for all zodiac signs). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('所有星座的基本信息列表' - list of basic zodiac information), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_zodiac_by_date', 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. With siblings like 'get_zodiac_info' (likely for a single zodiac) and 'get_zodiac_by_date' (likely for zodiac by date), there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving all zodiacs at once versus filtered or individual queries. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
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:

[![1777316659203075 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659203075/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659203075)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![1777316659203075 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659203075/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659203075)

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/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659203075'

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