SMCPHUB Server
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@SMCPHUB Serverfind MCP servers for weather forecasting"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Welcome to @smcphub/server 👋
MCP Server of SMCPHUB
SMCP Server is a simple and easy-to-use client for smcphub.com. It provides a simple API to interact with all the MCP Servers hosted in the smcphub.com.
SMCP hub is a platform that allows you to find the MCP servers which users published, or also publish your MCP Servers and get them listed and hosted on the website.
🏠 Homepage
Install
npm i @smcphub/serverOR
yarn add @smcphub/serverRelated MCP server: Dynamic MCP Server
Usage
Use official MCP Client to connect to the MCP Server.
// import the SDK
import SmcphubClient from '@smcphub/client';
// Instantiate the client
const smcphubClient = new SmcphubClient({
api_key: 'your-api-key'
});
// Connect the MCP Server
smcphubClient
.connect()
.then(tools => {
console.log(tools);
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});
// Call the tool
smcphubClient
.callTool('get_weather', {'city': '杭州'})
.then(content => {
console.log(content);
})
.catch(err => {
console.error(err);
});Or customize the MCP Server.
Author
👤 SMCPHUB
Available Tools
2 toolsget_tool_setC
Get the tool set detail by specific tool set id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_set_id | Yes | The tool set id |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detail' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context. The structure is clear but minimal.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tool set detail' includes, potential return values, or error cases. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'tool_set_id' documented as an integer. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the parameter is used to identify a specific tool set. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action ('Get') and resource ('tool set detail'), specifying it retrieves details for a specific tool set ID. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_tool_sets' by focusing on a single item rather than a list, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_tool_sets' or explain that this is for single-item retrieval while the sibling is for listing multiple items. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tool_setsC
Include all tools sets, every tool set has multiple tools
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Include all tools sets' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.
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 concise with one sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded clarity, as the purpose is vague. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value beyond the tool name.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of tool sets with details), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be useful.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned as the tool has no parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
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 'Include all tools sets, every tool set has multiple tools' is vague and tautological. It restates the name 'get_tool_sets' without clearly specifying the action (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') or differentiating from the sibling tool 'get_tool_set'. The phrase 'every tool set has multiple tools' describes a property rather than the tool's function.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_tool_set'. The description implies it returns all tool sets, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit alternatives or usage scenarios, the agent lacks clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_tool_set - First observed
get_tool_sets
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get_tool_set' retrieves details for a specific tool set by ID, while 'get_tool_sets' lists all tool sets. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on whether it needs a single item or a collection.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern: 'get_tool_set' and 'get_tool_sets'. The naming is predictable and uses the same verb ('get') with singular and plural nouns to indicate the scope, ensuring clarity and uniformity.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a tool management domain. A typical tool management system would require more operations, such as creating, updating, or deleting tool sets, to be considered well-scoped. This limited set may hinder agent workflows that need full lifecycle management.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for tool management. It only provides read operations (get details and list), missing essential CRUD functions like create, update, or delete tool sets. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive tool management tasks.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Publish and discover MCP servers via the official MCP Registry. Powered by HAPI MCP server.
Find and call the right MCP server for any task - pay per use, no install.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA minimal Python package for easily setting up and running MCP servers and clients, allowing functions to be automatically exposed as tools that LLMs can use with just 2 lines of code.22-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA flexible, extensible framework for building MCP servers with API key authentication, user management, and dynamic tool sharing.1511MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server providing tools for web research, code review, and concept explanation, callable by any MCP-compatible client.3-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server providing file, system, math, and text utilities through a simple CLI client.-
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/PA-LuffyYu/smcphub-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server