Skip to main content
Glama

MCPExplorer

by io.github.mcpexplorer

Search MCP servers

search_servers

Search the MCPExplorer index of MCP servers by free text and filters. Omit query to browse the whole index ranked by trust score. Every filter either applies or is echoed back in ignored_filters with a reason — filters never silently do nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10)
queryNoFree-text query, e.g. 'send email' or 'postgres'. Omit to browse the full index ranked by trust.
transportNoFilter by transport. Many servers are still 'unknown' (transport not yet probed by the crawler).
capabilityNoFilter to servers providing a capability slug, e.g. 'send-email'. An unknown slug is reported in ignored_filters, not silently dropped.
risk_levelNoFilter by tool risk. 'read-only' = has tools and none are write/destructive — the safe set to hand an autonomous agent.
official_statusNoFilter by provenance

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behaviors: browsing by trust score when query is omitted, and the strict filter application with feedback via ignored_filters. It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only search 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-loaded with the primary purpose, and every part adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of servers with fields, pagination metadata). The limit parameter implies pagination but no mention of next page tokens or result structure. This is a notable omission for a search tool with many sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. The only additional context is the usage note about omitting query to browse, but this is a usage guideline rather than parameter semantics.

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 searches the MCPExplorer index by free text and filters, with the option to browse without a query. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('MCP servers'), and the unique behavior of ranking by trust score distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server or list_capabilities.

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 omit the query parameter for browsing, and assures that filters never silently fail (ignored_filters). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like get_server or compare_servers, though the context of search versus retrieval is implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MCPExplorer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.

Resources