Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Hash passwords with bcrypt and issue/verify JWT session tokens over A2A + MCP.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
mikerawsonnz/gosce-agents
GitHub Stars
1
Server Listing
A2A GOSCE Agents

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedinvoke

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Provides authentication infrastructure for coding agents, enabling user pool management, encrypted secrets storage, and JWT token operations through MCP tools.
    45
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables cryptographic operations including hashing, encoding/decoding, ID generation, password tools, and JWT inspection via MCP.
    5
    53
    MIT
  • F
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for secure credential management, browser-based login automation, and TOTP/2FA auto-solving. Encrypts credentials with AES-256-GCM and automates login flows via Playwright.
    32
    2
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Provides secure OAuth2-based credential management for MCP servers, allowing agents to obtain short-lived token references without exposing raw secrets.
    7
    22
    MIT
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion between tools, so disambiguation is perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool name cannot be inconsistent with others; the naming is trivially consistent.

Tool Count3/5

One tool for multiple distinct operations (hash, issue, verify) feels thin; a few more tools would better scope the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

The single tool covers hashing and token management, but lacks separate operations like token revocation or password verification, leaving minor gaps.