tunnel-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role: open/join/close for session lifecycle, invite for member management, say/share/receive for communication, listen for polling, and status for inspection. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'tunnel_verb' pattern, with clear action verbs like open, join, close, invite, say, share, receive, listen, status.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools cover the full scope of a collaborative tunnel session without being excessive. Each tool serves a necessary function.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers creation, joining, leaving, inviting, messaging, file sharing, artifact retrieval, event listening, and session status. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 77 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the tunnel is closed, whether the message is broadcast or private, any length limits on text, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. While it is front-loaded, the single sentence does not provide enough information to earn its place; it is more underspecified than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the context (e.g., room state, connection requirements).
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% and the one parameter 'text' is not explained beyond its type. The description implies it is the message content, but missing details like maximum length, formatting, or encoding.
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 'Send a chat message to the room' clearly states the verb (send) and resource (chat message to the room), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like tunnel_listen or tunnel_receive, which are related.
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., tunnel_listen to receive messages). There is no mention of prerequisites like needing an open tunnel or room connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses blocking behavior and timeout, which is good. But it does not specify what happens on timeout (e.g., empty result or error) or whether the message is consumed, nor does it address potential destructive hints or rate limits.
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 two short sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core behavior. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basic behavior but omits details like return value format, error handling, and when to poll vs. listen. It is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only loosely maps 'highest seq' to sinceSeq, leaving timeoutMs completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the parameter semantics clearly.
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 'Block until the next message arrives (or timeout)' which specifies a blocking operation and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tunnel_receive, which might have similar functionality.
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 implicit usage guidance by mentioning 'Pass the highest seq you have already seen,' which hints at how to use the sinceSeq parameter. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tunnel_receive or tunnel_say.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the result lists current members (roster), which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error cases (e.g., invalid link).
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-loaded with the action, and provides the essential result. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and result. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., owning a link) and potential failure modes, making it marginally adequate.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description mentions the 'link' but does not elaborate on its format, origin, or constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type.
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 'Join' and the resource 'another developer's tunnel by its link'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tunnel_open or tunnel_invite by specifying that it uses a link to join an existing tunnel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a developer has a link, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tunnel_open or tunnel_invite. No direct guidance on when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: host destroys relay + log, member leaves. However, it does not mention irreversibility, confirmation, or impact on other participants, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundant text. First sentence defines the two behaviors, second instructs on the parameter. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers role-dependent behavior and parameter usage, but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and potential error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.
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 only parameter (summary) has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is optional and encourages providing it, but does not specify format, constraints, or where it appears.
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 with specific verbs ('closes', 'destroys', 'leaves') and distinguishes between two roles (host and member). It differentiates from sibling tools like tunnel_open, tunnel_join, etc., which involve different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by role (host vs member) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
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. It discloses that invites are single-use and expiring, and that the tool returns ready-to-forward messages. This is adequate behavioral 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 short (three sentences) and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and key usage instructions without extraneous detail.
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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and how to handle invites. It could mention error cases or timeout, but overall complete.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'invites' parameter as 'per expected teammate' and notes default 1, but does not describe the 'goal' parameter beyond its name, leaving part of the semantics unclear.
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: 'Open a room as host.' It specifies what it returns (single-use, expiring invites) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tunnel_join or tunnel_close.
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 usage: 'relay them to your human verbatim, one link per person, never reused. Treat every link as a secret.' It implies when to use (as host) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
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 fully explains what the tool returns (role, goal, members, etc.) and the verb 'inspect' suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any side effects, which would be ideal.
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 lists all relevant components of the session. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, covering all fields. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand its function.
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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameters exist.
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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'current session', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tunnel_close or tunnel_open. It lists all inspected aspects (role, goal, members roster, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking session state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites. No exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 discloses key behaviors: invites are single-use, expiring, and must be relayed verbatim. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints, but the core mutation (creating invites) is clear. Slightly more detail on the invite lifecycle could improve 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 sentence followed by an imperative instruction, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and conveys all essential information efficiently.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, host restriction, invitation nature, and required action (relay to human). No gaps are evident.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the 'count' parameter (integer, 1-15). However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. While the parameter name is intuitive, the lack of explicit guidance reduces clarity.
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 defines the tool as host-only, creating single-use expiring invites mid-session. It explicitly states the verb 'mint' and the resource 'invites', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tunnel_open which presumably starts sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Host-only', indicating who should use it, and provides clear use cases: 'add a teammate, or re-admit someone who disconnected'. It also notes that old links stay dead, guiding when not to use previous invites.
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?
Without any annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: decryption, SHA256 verification, refusal on mismatch, untrusted status, and that the sender's filename is display-only. No contradictions 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (around 80 words) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: main action, verification steps, trust warning, and display-only note. No redundancy.
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 adequately covers usage and safety. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success or error confirmation), leaving a minor gap in completeness.
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 description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: artifactId (fetch by id) and savePath (user-chosen write path). It adds meaning beyond raw names, though format constraints are not detailed.
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 action: fetch an artifact by id and write to a user-chosen path. It includes decryption and verification details, making it distinct from sibling tools which are about connection management or sharing.
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?
Provides explicit warnings about the untrusted nature of received files, instructing the agent to get human approval before writing or executing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to prefer this over alternatives.
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?
Describes the complete process (reads, hashes, seals, offers), encryption details, and return fields (artifactId, offeredTo, olderMembers). Warns about plaintext filename. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and meets it.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then process, then return value and warning. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: action, encryption, return values, and caveats (human approval, plaintext filename). Complete for agent usage.
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?
Only one parameter (path) with 0% schema coverage; description adds meaning by stating 'Reads the file at `path`', clarifying its purpose. Could mention path format but sufficient for single string param.
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 'Share a file with the room (text or binary)', specifying verb, resource, and context. Differentiates from sibling tools like tunnel_say (text messages) and tunnel_receive.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to get human approval for sensitive data and warns about plaintext filename. Implicitly distinguishes from other tools by mentioning file sharing, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs 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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tunnel-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachlikefolio/tunnel-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zachlikefolio/tunnel-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/zachlikefolio/tunnel-mcp'

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