yop-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools retrieve information from the Yeepay platform (overview, product overview, product detail, API detail, link detail), leading to potential confusion. However, descriptions clarify their specific purposes (e.g., overview vs. product overview).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'yeepay_yop_' prefix followed by descriptive snake_case names (e.g., api_detail, gen_key_pair), making it predictable.
Tool Count5/5
10 tools is well-scoped for a documentation and certificate management server, covering essential functions without being excessive or thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers platform overview, product details, API specs, SDK guide, and certificate lifecycle (generation, download, parsing). Minor gaps like missing structured product listing or API search, but agents can work around these.
Average 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
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
- Last stable release on July 14, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns detailed content but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The read-only nature is assumed but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and Args/Returns clearly separated. It uses minimal words, though the Chinese phrasing is somewhat repetitive on the platform name.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It could mention the output format (e.g., plain text or HTML) but is generally complete given the tool's simplicity.
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, but the description provides a brief explanation for the 'url' parameter ('易宝支付开放平台(YOP)的子页面的URL地址'), adding meaning beyond the type. However, it does not specify URL format or constraints.
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 states the tool retrieves detailed content of subpages or external links of YeePay Open Platform, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'yeepay_yop_api_detail', so a distinction is implied but not explicit.
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 mentions recursive usage when content contains links, but no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use yeepay_yop_link_detail vs yeepay_yop_product_detail_and_associated_apis.
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?
Given no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the core operation and return format but omits details about error handling, side effects, or authorization requirements.
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 Args and Returns sections, providing necessary details without unnecessary verbosity. It is concise but could be slightly tighter.
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 covers the main functionality and return format adequately. Given the output schema exists, it does not need to repeat the return structure. It is mostly complete but lacks guidance on edge cases or file requirements.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose (algorithm, file paths, password) and the return dictionary structure, going beyond the bare 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 explicitly states that the tool parses certificate files to extract Base64-encoded public or private key strings, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like key generation or download.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided; the description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool saves keys to a local path, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), permissions required, or whether generation occurs locally or involves external calls. Basic transparency but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence explaining the purpose followed by a succinct parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter descriptions are minimal (just enumerating options without explanations), which could be improved without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool saves to local path and has an output schema, but the description does not mention what the output represents (e.g., file paths or success status). For a simple generation tool, it is adequate but misses the chance to specify return semantics. Given the context signals (3 params, no nested objects), the description is somewhat complete but could be more explicit about outputs.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by listing three parameters with possible values and defaults (algorithm: RSA/SM2, key_format: pkcs8/pkcs1, storage_type: file/string). However, it does not explain the semantics of each option (e.g., difference between pkcs8 and pkcs1), which would further aid the agent. Still, it provides meaning beyond the bare 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 generates an asymmetric encryption key pair (public and private) based on an algorithm and saves to a local path. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like yeepay_yop_download_cert or yeepay_yop_parse_certificates.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Given it is a key generation tool, usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It only implies a read operation by saying 'get', but fails to provide explicit safety or dependency info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with an important usage note about the sibling tool. No words are wasted, and it is well-structured.
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 parameterless tool with output described, the description covers the main use and linking behavior. However, it does not differentiate from the very similarly named sibling tool 'yeepay_yop_overview', which could cause confusion. Hence a slight deduction.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some value by mentioning the output format (markdown) and linking behavior, but these are not parameter semantics. Following the baseline rule, a score of 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 retrieves an overview of YOP product capabilities, using a specific verb ('get') and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting that when links appear in the output, the sibling tool yeepay_yop_link_detail should be used, which clarifies its scope.
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 guidance on when to use this tool (to get an overview) and when to use an alternative (yeepay_yop_link_detail for details of links). However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool 'yeepay_yop_overview', so it slightly lacks completeness in terms of when not to use this tool.
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?
Without annotations, the description discloses the download and save behavior, output structure, and constraints like password length. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting) or error handling.
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 structured as a concise list of Args and Returns, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and 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?
Given 6 parameters and no annotations, the description explains the output schema (Dict with message and file paths). It is mostly complete but lacks failure scenarios or edge-case handling.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., Base64 encoded key, password length 12-16), which the schema omits.
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 action ('download this certificate') and the resource (CFCA certificate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like key pair generation or parsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., parse_certificates or gen_key_pair). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context is included.
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 carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns overview information in markdown format, which is transparent. No side effects are mentioned, but as a read-only overview, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a return line, no wasted words. It immediately states the tool's function and how to navigate further.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (though not detailed), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format and provides navigation hints, making it sufficient for a simple overview 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what content will be returned, making the tool's purpose clear beyond the schema.
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 it provides an overview of the YOP platform including specifications, access process, and site map. It differentiates from sibling 'product_overview' by being platform-wide, but could be more explicit about scope.
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 hints at usage by mentioning that if content contains links, one should use 'yeepay_yop_link_detail'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or exclude 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown-formatted content including product details, usage instructions, and API lists. It also highlights the presence of links for further exploration. No destructive behavior is implied.
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, front-loading the main purpose and then providing structured Args and Returns sections. It is efficient, though could be slightly more streamlined.
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 single parameter and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns (markdown format). It also references a sibling for further detail, which is helpful context. Without output schema details, the return description suffices.
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's Args section explains that product_code is the unique product identifier, adding meaning beyond the input schema which only provides a title and type. With 0% schema description coverage, this clarification is valuable.
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 retrieves product introductions, usage instructions, and associated API lists for a specified YOP product. It also mentions that links within can be further explored via a sibling tool (yeepay_yop_link_detail), effectively distinguishing its role.
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 advises using a sibling tool (yeepay_yop_link_detail) for deeper detail on links within the content. This guides the agent on when to use alternatives. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool compared to other product-related siblings.
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?
描述说明了返回格式为markdown，且隐含了输出可能包含链接。无注解配置，但工具行为简单，无副作用或隐藏行为。
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?
两句话，第一句直接点明用途，第二句补充与兄弟工具的关系，无冗余信息，结构高效。
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?
对于无参数、有输出schema的简单工具，描述提供了足够的信息（用途、输出格式、关联工具）。但未详细说明输出内容结构，略微不足。
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?
无参数，schema覆盖100%，描述无需添加参数信息。描述本身简洁有效，未遗漏任何必要说明。
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?
描述明确表明工具用于获取易宝支付yop-java-sdk的使用说明，动词'获取'和资源'使用说明'清晰。同时提及内容中包含链接时可调用兄弟工具yeepay_yop_link_detail，有效区分了兄弟工具。
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?
描述给出了具体使用场景：当需要获取链接详细内容时使用yeepay_yop_link_detail，提供了清晰的上下文。但未明确说不应使用本工具的情形或替代方案，由于工具简单，该信息足够。
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 the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves instructions and may include links, but no further behavioral details (e.g., no destructive actions). This is adequate for a simple retrieval 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and a usage hint. Every sentence is necessary and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a simple return value (markdown string), the description is sufficient. It also mentions a related tool, enhancing completeness for agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning as there are none.
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 that the tool provides usage instructions for SDKs and tools from Yeepay Open Platform. It distinguishes itself by mentioning when to use a sibling tool for links.
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 gives explicit guidance on using yeepay_yop_link_detail for detailed content, implying this tool is for initial instructions. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over other sibling tools like yeepay_yop_api_detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation by stating it retrieves information ('获取...详细定义'), and does not suggest any modifications or side effects. This adequately discloses the non-destructive nature.
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 separate sections for Args and Returns, but it could be slightly more concise. The return part largely repeats the purpose. However, every sentence contributes value, and the formatting aids readability.
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 single-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description comprehensively covers usage: explains the parameter in detail, describes the return format, and links to a sibling tool for extended content. No missing information.
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 0% coverage, but the description provides detailed semantics for the only parameter 'api_uri', including its purpose and multiple examples (e.g., '/rest/v1.0/aggpay/pre-pay'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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 that the tool retrieves detailed API definitions from Yeepay Payment Platform (YOP), listing included information types and mentioning a sibling tool for further detail. This distinguishes it from siblings like yeepay_yop_download_cert and yeepay_yop_gen_key_pair.
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 states the tool's purpose and conditionally guides users to call yeepay_yop_link_detail when content contains links. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, the context is clear for selecting this tool over siblings.
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:

[![yop-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yop-platform/yop-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yop-platform/yop-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yop-platform/yop-mcp'

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