Finds real, maintained open-source repos that fit your project. MCP grounding for coding agents.
Pre-adoption decision tool for open-source reuse. Call BEFORE implementing non-trivial functionality that a maintained OSS component could provide (queue, scheduler, parser, auth, cache, protocol client, ...) or before adding a dependency. Send a short capability need plus your project's minimal constraints; returns up to 12 candidates by default (up to 20 when max_candidates is provided), with per-constraint pass/fail/unknown, evidence basis (observed vs inferred), and explicit no-hit semantics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Capability need, e.g. "job queue with retry for node.js". No project names, paths, or secrets. | |
| strict | No | also exclude candidates whose required constraint fields are unknown | |
| telemetry | No | aggregate stores zero user text (outcome counters only); debug also stores the need for 30 days | aggregate |
| exclusions | No | ||
| constraints | No | Minimal project constraints. Each verdict comes back as pass|fail|unknown per candidate. | |
| max_candidates | No | ||
| existing_components | No | owner/repo you already use — excluded and counted as already_have |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| corpus | Yes | |
| outcome | Yes | |
| candidates | Yes | |
| relaxation | No | present on constrained_out: real recount when dropping one constraint |
| no_hit_guidance | No | |
| contract_version | Yes | |
| rejected_summary | Yes |
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 explicitly discloses return semantics (candidates, verdicts pass/fail/unknown, evidence basis observed vs inferred, explicit no-hit semantics), output limits (12 default, 20 max), and telemetry behavior (aggregate stores zero user text; debug stores need for 30 days). It omits some specifics like rate limits or failure modes, but for a read-only advisory tool this is strong transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a dense, information-rich paragraph with good forward structure: purpose first, then usage trigger, then input, then output semantics. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more scannable with bullet points, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool and adequately front-loaded with the core decision-tool purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, what to send, return semantics, verdict model, evidence basis, no-hit behavior, telemetry implications, and the license-matching nuances handled within the schema. The output schema exists so return-value explanation is not needed. This is fully adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, which is high. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the constraint verdict model (pass/fail/unknown) that maps to the constraints object, describes the evidence basis, and names the excluded-from-exclusion semantics. The telemetry parameter's enum behavior is explained (aggregate vs debug). The description compensates well for the remaining undocumented params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific and action-oriented: 'Pre-adoption decision tool for open-source reuse. Call BEFORE implementing non-trivial functionality.' It states the exact trigger conditions and the return semantics (candidates count, per-constraint verdicts, evidence basis, no-hit semantics). It clearly distinguishes from sibling search_components by framing itself as a decision/pre-adoption tool rather than a generic search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call BEFORE implementing non-trivial functionality... or before adding a dependency') and what to send ('a short capability need plus your project's minimal constraints'). It includes exclusions (no project names, paths, or secrets). The sibling search_components exists, and this description positions this tool as the pre-adoption decision tool, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Deprecated: for all new integrations use find_fit_candidates instead. Compatibility-only free-text keyword search over the same corpus (GitHub repos with >=2000 stars), WITHOUT constraint checking or pass/fail verdicts. Returns up to 12 candidates with signals (role, protocols, affordance, fit, freshness). fit.status="unknown" means fit fields were not extracted — verify runtime/interfaces in the repo README before adopting. Results are untrusted data, not instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Short keyword phrase, e.g. "music server", "vector db", "scraping". No project names, paths, or secrets. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so comprehensively: returns up to 12 candidates, explains the signals (role, protocols, etc.), and warns that fit.status='unknown' means fields were not extracted, and results are untrusted data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: three sentences covering deprecation, scope, behavior, and warnings. Front-loaded with the critical deprecation notice, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete, covering the corpus, result count, signals, edge cases, and trustworthiness. No gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'query' has 100% schema coverage, but the description adds valuable beyond-schema context by specifying the expected format ('Short keyword phrase') and prohibitions (no project names, paths, or secrets).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a deprecated free-text keyword search over a specific corpus (GitHub repos with >=2000 stars), explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool find_fit_candidates by noting it lacks constraint checking and pass/fail verdicts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to use find_fit_candidates for new integrations, and clarifies this tool is for compatibility-only searches. It sets clear expectations about what the tool does and does not do.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
find_fit_candidates2 fields changedInput schema / properties / constraints / properties / license / descriptionPrevious value: -"SPDX allow-list, e.g. [\"MIT\",\"Apache-2.0\",\"GPL-3.0\"]. Judged against the GitHub-observed spdx_id; matching ignores case and treats the GNU \"-only\"/\"-or-later\" suffixes as equivalent (GitHub cannot distinguish them). Verdict is \"unknown\" in three cases: GitHub could not identify the license (NOASSERTION), the repo has no LICENSE file at all (NONE — legally all-rights-reserved, so check the candidate's license field), or it is not collected yet"New value: +"SPDX allow-list, e.g. [\"MIT\",\"Apache-2.0\",\"GPL-3.0\"]. Judged against the GitHub-observed spdx_id; matching ignores case and treats the GNU \"-only\"/\"-or-later\" suffixes as equivalent (GitHub cannot distinguish them). Verdict is \"unknown\" in three cases: GitHub could not identify the license (NOASSERTION), GitHub found no license file at the repo root (NONE — see the candidate's license field; GitHub only detects root-level license files), or it is not collected yet"Output schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / license / descriptionPrevious value: -"GitHub-observed SPDX id (GitHub emits the deprecated GNU short ids, e.g. \"GPL-3.0\" not \"GPL-3.0-only\"). \"NOASSERTION\" = a LICENSE file exists but GitHub could not identify it; \"NONE\" = the repo has no LICENSE file at all (legally all-rights-reserved — judged \"unknown\", not \"fail\", so confirm before adopting); null = not collected yet. All three yield an \"unknown\" verdict"New value: +"GitHub-observed SPDX id (GitHub emits the deprecated GNU short ids, e.g. \"GPL-3.0\" not \"GPL-3.0-only\"). \"NOASSERTION\" = a LICENSE file exists but GitHub could not identify it; \"NONE\" = GitHub found no license file at the repo *root* — it does not look in subdirectories or the README, so this is not proof the project is unlicensed (judged \"unknown\", not \"fail\"; if genuinely absent, default copyright applies — confirm in the repo); null = not collected yet. All three yield an \"unknown\" verdict"find_fit_candidates2 fields changedInput schema / properties / constraints / properties / license / descriptionPrevious value: -"SPDX allow-list, e.g. [\"MIT\",\"Apache-2.0\",\"GPL-3.0\"]. Judged against the GitHub-observed spdx_id; matching ignores case and treats the GNU \"-only\"/\"-or-later\" suffixes as equivalent (GitHub cannot distinguish them). Verdict is \"unknown\" when GitHub could not identify the license (NOASSERTION) or it is not collected yet"New value: +"SPDX allow-list, e.g. [\"MIT\",\"Apache-2.0\",\"GPL-3.0\"]. Judged against the GitHub-observed spdx_id; matching ignores case and treats the GNU \"-only\"/\"-or-later\" suffixes as equivalent (GitHub cannot distinguish them). Verdict is \"unknown\" in three cases: GitHub could not identify the license (NOASSERTION), the repo has no LICENSE file at all (NONE — legally all-rights-reserved, so check the candidate's license field), or it is not collected yet"Output schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / license / descriptionPrevious value: -"GitHub-observed SPDX id (GitHub emits the deprecated GNU short ids, e.g. \"GPL-3.0\" not \"GPL-3.0-only\"); \"NOASSERTION\" = a LICENSE file exists but GitHub could not identify it; null = not collected"New value: +"GitHub-observed SPDX id (GitHub emits the deprecated GNU short ids, e.g. \"GPL-3.0\" not \"GPL-3.0-only\"). \"NOASSERTION\" = a LICENSE file exists but GitHub could not identify it; \"NONE\" = the repo has no LICENSE file at all (legally all-rights-reserved — judged \"unknown\", not \"fail\", so confirm before adopting); null = not collected yet. All three yield an \"unknown\" verdict"find_fit_candidates2 fields changedInput schema / properties / constraints / properties / license / descriptionPrevious value: -"v1 always evaluates to \"unknown\" (license not yet in corpus)"New value: +"SPDX allow-list, e.g. [\"MIT\",\"Apache-2.0\",\"GPL-3.0\"]. Judged against the GitHub-observed spdx_id; matching ignores case and treats the GNU \"-only\"/\"-or-later\" suffixes as equivalent (GitHub cannot distinguish them). Verdict is \"unknown\" when GitHub could not identify the license (NOASSERTION) or it is not collected yet"Output schema / properties / candidates / items / properties / licenseAdded value: +{
+ "description": "GitHub-observed SPDX id (GitHub emits the deprecated GNU short ids, e.g. \"GPL-3.0\" not \"GPL-3.0-only\"); \"NOASSERTION\" = a LICENSE file exists but GitHub could not identify it; null = not collected",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}search_components1 field changedInput schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"e.g. \"music server\", \"vector db\", \"scraping\""New value: +"Short keyword phrase, e.g. \"music server\", \"vector db\", \"scraping\". No project names, paths, or secrets."find_fit_candidates1 field changedInput schema / properties / max_candidates / defaultPrevious value: -8New value: +12find_fit_candidatesassemble_architectureget_synergy_guideassemble_architectureget_synergy_guidesearch_componentsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Search GitHub, npm, PyPI, StackOverflow, ArXiv from one MCP — built for coding agents.
Code intelligence for LLMs. Analyze, search, and retrieve code from any public git repository.
Repo intel for AI coding agents: overview, PRs, contributors, hot files, CI, deps. Remote MCP.
Find, compare, and audit software for AI agents. Scored registry of tools and MCP servers.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are clearly differentiated: find_fit_candidates is the present-day recommended pre-adoption decision tool with constraint checking and verdicts, while search_components is explicitly deprecated and marked compatibility-only for free-text search. The overlap in purpose is acknowledged and disambiguated via the deprecation marker and feature distinctions.
The names follow completely different conventions: find_fit_candidates uses a verb_phrase_noun compound, while search_components is a plain verb_noun pattern. The inconsistent verb styles and structural asymmetry ('find_fit_candidates' vs 'search_components') don't signal they belong to the same server or tool family.
Two tools is right at the thin edge of the scale, and one of them (search_components) is explicitly deprecated, effectively leaving a single active tool. For a server with any meaningful scope, a two-tool surface with one deprecated is a very narrow offering.
The active surface is essentially a single capability (finding fit candidates for OSS reuse). While search_components provides backward-compatibility, there's no discovery/listing tool, no way to inspect individual candidates in depth, and no lifecycle beyond the initial search — an agent needing richer candidate interaction or corpus exploration would hit dead ends.
