What can you do with this server?

Asynthetic provides ground truth migration intelligence for AI coding agents, giving them verified, curated information about breaking changes between library versions instead of relying on potentially outdated training data. * get_migration: Retrieve a hand-curated migration map between two versions (or SemVer ranges) of a package, including ordered breaking changes with before/after code examples, deprecation timelines, source-citation URLs, last_verified date, verification_level (high/medium/low), and SemVer range resolution details. Returns found: false with an explicit no-guessing instruction when data doesn't exist. * get_breaking_changes: Look up all breaking changes introduced in a specific version or major version range of a package, matched against curated migration maps, with citations and verification metadata. * list_available_maps: Discover what migration maps exist, filterable by package name or ecosystem, showing package, version range, status (draft/verified/stale), and last verified date — useful before calling get_migration. * check_peer_compatibility: Perform a static SemVer check to determine whether two specific package versions are compatible (e.g., next@15 + react@18.2), returning true, false, or unknown with cited reasoning from curated peer data. * check_compatibility (planned): A future project-aware cross-package compatibility analysis tool; currently returns implemented: false and explicitly instructs agents not to infer anything from its response.

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides migration maps for Next.js upgrades (e.g., 14 to 15), including breaking changes with before/after code, deprecations, and peer compatibility requirements. Planned: provides migration maps for React version upgrades (e.g., 18 to 19), detailing breaking changes and peer dependencies. Provides migration maps for the Vercel AI SDK (package 'ai') upgrades (e.g., 4.x to 5.0), including breaking changes and peer dependencies. Planned: provides migration maps for Zod version upgrades (e.g., 3 to 4), detailing breaking changes and schema changes.

Asynthetic

Official

by asyntheticai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Asynthetic

Ground truth for AI coding agents.

Your agent's knowledge froze on a date. Asynthetic tells it exactly what changed — every breaking change between library versions, cited and tested.

claude mcp add --transport http asynthetic https://asynthetic.up.railway.app/mcp

// agent asks: get_migration("ai", "^4.0.0", "^5.0.0")
{
  "found": true,
  "verification_level": "medium",
  "migration": {
    "breaking_changes": [
      {
        "title": "maxTokens renamed to maxOutputTokens",
        "before_code": "generateText({ model, maxTokens: 1024, prompt })",
        "after_code":  "generateText({ model, maxOutputTokens: 1024, prompt })",
        "source_url": "https://ai-sdk.dev/docs/migration-guides/migration-guide-5-0"
      }
      // …22 more, every one cited
    ]
  }
}

Models improve every month. Their knowledge still ends on a date.

Every coding agent ships with a knowledge freeze date. The libraries it writes against don't.

So agents do what the training data taught them: they write maxTokens into AI SDK 5 (removed), synchronous params into Next.js 15 (now a Promise), LangChainAdapter imports from a package that no longer exports them. The code looks right. The agent is confident. The build breaks — or worse, it doesn't, and the bug ships.

Tools that fetch current documentation tell agents what the API looks like today. That's half the problem. An upgrade needs the diff: what changed, what replaced it, and what silently behaves differently. No amount of "current docs" contains that.

Asynthetic is that missing half. Ask it about an upgrade, and it returns a hand-curated migration map: ordered breaking changes with before/after code, deprecation timelines, peer-version requirements, and a citation for every claim. Retrieval, never generation — the same question gets the same verified answer every time.

Related MCP server: docpilot-mcp

Before / after

Without Asynthetic — the agent "upgrades" your AI SDK app from memory: keeps result.usage for billing (now silently counts only the final step), leaves temperature unset (v5 removed the implicit 0 — output turns nondeterministic), renames nothing because v4 syntax was correct when the model trained.

With Asynthetic — one tool call returns all 23 breaking changes for that exact version window, including the three above, each with the fix and the official source. The agent applies facts. You review a diff instead of debugging a regression.

That's the product: the difference between an agent that remembers and an agent that knows.

What a map gives your agent


Migration Maps	Hand-curated upgrade intelligence per version window: 40 breaking changes across 2 live maps (`next` 14→15, `ai` 4→5)
Citations	Every map cites official sources and carries a `last_verified` date. Maps are never LLM-generated.
Verification Levels	Every response self-reports confidence: `high` (empirically tested on real builds), `medium`, `low` — derived, never self-declared
Field Notes	Where reality diverges from docs, maps say so — e.g. Turbopack doesn't actually enforce the `@next/font` removal that Webpack does; Next 15's React 19 "requirement" isn't build-enforced. Found by running the upgrades, not reading about them.
SemVer Resolution	Ask with ranges (`^14.2.0 → ^15.0.0`); resolution method is always disclosed
Peer Checks	Static compatibility answers (`next@15` + `react@18.2` → `false`, with the cited reason)
Honest Misses	No data means `found: false` and an explicit instruction not to guess — never a plausible fabrication

The next 14→15 map is Asynthetic's first verification_level: high: every entry tested against real builds on 14.2.35 and 15.5.20, across Turbopack and Webpack, dev and production.

Install

Hosted (nothing to install):

claude mcp add --transport http asynthetic https://asynthetic.up.railway.app/mcp

Local (offline, bundled data):

claude mcp add asynthetic -- npx -y asynthetic

Any MCP client works — Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf, or your own agent:

{ "mcpServers": { "asynthetic": { "url": "https://asynthetic.up.railway.app/mcp" } } }

Then upgrade something. The agent calls get_migration before it edits.

Tools

Tool	Answers
`get_migration(package, from, to)`	"What breaks between these versions, and how do I fix each one?"
`get_breaking_changes(package, version)`	"What does this version break?"
`check_peer_compatibility(a, va, b, vb)`	"Do these two versions work together?" — `true` / `false` / `unknown`, cited
`list_available_maps()`	"What does Asynthetic know?"

Full response shape, transports (Streamable HTTP + stdio + legacy SSE), and self-hosting: see docs below.

Why trust it

Asynthetic's founding rule: a wrong map is worse than no map. Everything follows from that.

Curated exclusively from official changelogs, migration guides, and releases — with the URL attached to every entry.
verified status is earned empirically, not editorially: real projects, both bundlers, dev and production, on pinned versions. The process regularly finds things the docs get wrong — those findings ship in the maps.
Confidence is machine-readable (verification_level, source_count, pre-release warnings), so agents can weigh answers instead of trusting blindly.
Unknown is a first-class answer. The server tells agents when it doesn't know and instructs them not to invent.

Narrow and deep, on purpose: fast-moving AI and JavaScript frameworks first, correctness over coverage always.

Self-hosting

git clone https://github.com/asyntheticai/asynthetic.git
cd asynthetic && npm install && npm run build && npm start

Zero-config serves the bundled maps over stdio. Set PORT for HTTP mode (/mcp, legacy /sse, health at /). Set SUPABASE_URL + SUPABASE_ANON_KEY to serve from Postgres (schema/schema.sql, then npm run seed). Missing config never crashes — it falls back and says so on stderr.

data/maps/          the maps (source of truth, JSON, Zod-validated)
src/server.ts       MCP tools
src/store/          Postgres + local backends, SemVer resolver
scripts/smoke.ts    23-check end-to-end suite across every transport

Contributing a map

Official sources only. Changelogs, release notes, migration guides. Record every URL. Blog posts can start a hunt; they can't finish one.
Follow the schema in src/types/migration-map.ts — validation rejects anything malformed before it can ever be served.
New maps enter as draft. verified is earned by testing snippets on real builds of the pinned versions. Retired maps become stale — excluded from serving, kept as record.
npm run smoke must pass. Don't guess versions or API names: if it's not in an official source, flag it in the PR instead.

Status

Free public beta — hosted endpoint and npm package open to everyone. Next: more maps (Tailwind 3→4, React 18→19, Zod 3→4, AI SDK 5→6), more high-verification promotions, project-aware compatibility analysis. Details will be announced.

Security

Read-only by construction: every tool is a lookup over curated data. No code execution, no request-time fetching, no access to your project or filesystem. The hosted endpoint sees only tool arguments (package names, version strings); sessions are ephemeral, in-memory, and isolated. Report issues via GitHub security advisories.

License

Source-available under BSL 1.1: self-hosting for your own use — personal, team, company-internal — is always permitted; reselling it as a competing hosted service isn't. Converts automatically to Apache 2.0 on July 4, 2030.

Built with TypeScript, the official MCP SDK, Zod, and Supabase. Serving live at asynthetic.up.railway.app/mcp.

Available Tools

5 tools

check_compatibilityCheck cross-package compatibility (not yet implemented)A

Read-only

PLANNED: project-aware compatibility analysis. Currently returns implemented=false and no data. Do not infer compatibility (or incompatibility) from this response. For a static SemVer check between two known package versions, use check_peer_compatibility instead.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ecosystem`	No	Package ecosystem (default "npm")	npm
`package_a`	Yes
`package_b`	Yes
`version_a`	Yes
`version_b`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the tool is not implemented, returns 'implemented=false' and no data, and warns against misinterpreting the response. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key status ('PLANNED'), followed by critical warnings and an alternative. Every sentence adds essential information 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?

For a planned tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: status, behavior (returns implemented=false), misuse warning, and alternative. It is complete for the tool's current state.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not: the four required parameters (package_a, version_a, package_b, version_b) have no additional meaning beyond their names. The ecosystem parameter is described in schema but not in description, missing an opportunity to clarify its default and allowed values.

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 is a planned feature for compatibility analysis, explicitly marking it as 'PLANNED' and 'not yet implemented'. It differentiates from the sibling tool check_peer_compatibility by stating its scope (project-aware vs static SemVer check).

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 advises when not to use the tool ('Do not infer compatibility...') and provides a direct alternative ('use check_peer_compatibility instead'), giving clear usage guidance.

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

check_peer_compatibilityCheck peer compatibility between two package versionsA

Read-only

Static SemVer check of two known package versions against curated compatible_with peer data from migration maps. Purely declarative — no filesystem access or project inspection (that is the scope of the separate, unimplemented check_compatibility). Returns compatible: true | false | "unknown". Treat "unknown" as absence of curated data, never as evidence of incompatibility.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ecosystem`	No	Package ecosystem (default "npm")	npm
`package_a`	Yes	First package name, e.g. "next"
`package_b`	Yes	Second package name, e.g. "react"
`version_a`	Yes	Version (or SemVer range) of package_a, e.g. "15.0.0"
`version_b`	Yes	Version (or SemVer range) of package_b, e.g. "18.2.0"

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Disclosure goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by clarifying no filesystem access, return types (true|false|'unknown'), and semantics of 'unknown'. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences with critical information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully explains purpose, behavior, parameter usage, and result interpretation. No gaps identified.

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 clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no further semantic detail for parameters but provides examples and return value context, maintaining baseline adequacy.

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?

States explicit verb ('check') and resource ('peer compatibility between two package versions'), and distinguishes from sibling 'check_compatibility' by noting its different scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (static SemVer check against curated data) and when not to (no filesystem access, contrast with unimplemented check_compatibility). Includes guidance on interpreting 'unknown' results.

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

get_breaking_changesGet breaking changes in a versionA

Read-only

Returns the breaking changes introduced when upgrading TO the given version of a package (matched by major version against curated migration maps), with source citations and last_verified dates. Accepts concrete versions or SemVer ranges ("15", "^15.0.0", "15.x"); resolution is disclosed via match_type/resolved_via. If found=false, no verified data exists — do not guess.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes	Package name as published, e.g. "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk"
`version`	Yes	The version (or SemVer range) whose breaking changes you want, e.g. "2.0.0", "^15.0.0"
`ecosystem`	No	Package ecosystem (default "npm")	npm

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it matches by major version against curated maps, reveals resolution details, and clarifies the meaning of found=false. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency beyond the structured fields.

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—four sentences, no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, version input, resolution, and result handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains tightly focused, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: input format, resolution, and behavior when no data exists. It mentions source citations and last_verified dates, but does not enumerate all return fields. Given the tool's complexity and annotations, it is largely complete, though a note on pagination or errors would improve it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that version accepts SemVer ranges and that resolution is disclosed via match_type/resolved_via. This goes beyond the schema properties and helps an agent understand parameter usage and output expectations.

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 the tool returns breaking changes for a package version upgrade, with citations and last_verified dates. It specifies version input as concrete or SemVer ranges and explains resolution disclosure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_compatibility or get_migration, missing a chance to clarify when this tool is the best choice.

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 gives some usage guidance, such as not to guess when found=false, and explains version matching and resolution. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

get_migrationGet migration mapA

Read-only

Returns the verified migration map for upgrading a package between two versions: ordered breaking changes with before/after code, deprecations, source-citation URLs, and a last_verified date. Accepts concrete versions or SemVer ranges (e.g. "^14.2.0", "~14.1.0", "15.x"); non-exact lookups resolve to the covering map and disclose how via match_type/resolved_via/match_note. If found=false, no verified data exists — do not guess.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	Yes	Package name as published, e.g. "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk"
`ecosystem`	No	Package ecosystem (default "npm")	npm
`to_version`	Yes	Version or SemVer range upgrading to, e.g. "2.0.0", "^15.0.0", "2.x"
`from_version`	Yes	Version or SemVer range currently in use, e.g. "1.29.0", "^14.2.0", "1.x"

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false are reinforced and expanded by description: explains SemVer range resolution disclosures (match_type, resolved_via, match_note) and outcome when no data exists (found=false). No contradictions.

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 sentences: first states purpose and return content, second explains parameter behavior and edge case. No redundant words; highly efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects, the description adequately covers return value details, parameter behavior, and failure case (found=false). No gaps 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining how non-exact versions are resolved and what fields are returned (match_type etc.), going beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the verified migration map for upgrading a package between two versions, listing specific contents (breaking changes, code, deprecations, URLs, date). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_breaking_changes or list_available_maps.

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?

Description explains parameter flexibility (concrete versions or SemVer ranges) and resolution behavior for non-exact lookups. It also advises on found=false case ('do not guess'). No explicit comparison to siblings, but context provides sibling list.

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

list_available_mapsList available migration mapsA

Read-only

Lists every migration map in the store: package, ecosystem, from_version, to_version, status (draft/verified/stale), last_verified. Optional filters: ecosystem, package. Use this to discover coverage before calling get_migration.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package`	No	Filter by exact package name (case-insensitive)
`ecosystem`	No	Filter by ecosystem, e.g. "npm"

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that the tool returns specific fields and supports filtering but does not discuss pagination or rate limits. Adequate but not extensive additional behavior beyond 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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first defines output fields, the second specifies filters and usage context. No wasted words.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential details: what is returned, optional filters, and its role relative to siblings. Could mention if results are paginated, but not critical for this case.

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 both parameters fully described in the JSON schema. The description restates the filter options but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 it lists migration maps with specific fields (package, ecosystem, versions, status, last_verified) and optional filters. Distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as a discovery tool before calling get_migration.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover coverage before calling get_migration.' Does not detail when not to use, but the guidance is clear for a simple listing tool.

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.

5 tool updatesv0.1.2Jul 4, 2026
- First observedcheck_compatibility
- First observedcheck_peer_compatibility
- First observedget_breaking_changes
- First observedget_migration
- First observedlist_available_maps

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing maps, retrieving migration maps, getting breaking changes, static peer compatibility check, and a planned project-aware check. Descriptions provide clear boundaries and guidance to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_, get_, list_). The naming is predictable and descriptive, with no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering migration map queries, static compatibility, and breaking changes, the count is well-scoped for the domain. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The set covers core operations for package migration analysis: listing, retrieving maps, and checking static compatibility. The unimplemented check_compatibility indicates a planned feature for project-aware analysis, which is a minor gap, but the current surface is functional for its stated scope.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

gread A
io.github.NitroRCr
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
Version Control Code Analysis Documentation Access
5361
driflyte-mcp-server
com.driflyte
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
Search Web Scraping Knowledge & Memory
211
H-Index A
ai.xr-utilities
Capability registry for the agentic economy. Semantic search over verified MCP server listings.
Search Documentation Access
2
StackResolve C
dev.stackresolve
Find, compare, and audit software for AI agents. Scored registry of tools and MCP servers.
Developer Tools
151

Related MCP Servers

parecode
Developer Tools Code Analysis Coding Agents
BasilSkyWalk
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
An MCP server giving coding agents context-window-aware code search and safe, atomic multi-file edits — built to cut token usage on large codebases without sacrificing correctness.
Updated 13 days ago (2026-08-24 09:37 UTC)
3
132
5
MIT
docpilot-mcp
Developer Tools Documentation Access
neromtoobad
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that provides tools to fetch live, version-accurate documentation, changelogs, examples, and method signatures for npm and PyPI packages, preventing AI coding agents from hallucinating stale APIs.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-17 10:03 UTC)
21
ISC
mcdev-mcp
Games & Gamification Code Analysis Autonomous Agents
use-ai-for-mc
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
An MCP server that empowers AI coding agents to work effectively with Minecraft mod development, providing static analysis of decompiled source code and runtime interaction with a running Minecraft instance.
Updated 6 days ago (2026-08-31 10:27 UTC)
31
44
13
MIT
Vibgrate AI Contextofficial
Code Analysis Documentation Access Software Architecture
vibgrate
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Local-first MCP server that gives AI assistants codebase intelligence—code graph, drift analysis, vulnerability attribution, and version-correct library docs—all from the user's machine.
Updated a day ago (2026-09-04 21:07 UTC)
1,529
3
Apache 2.0

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/asyntheticai/asynthetic'

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

Asynthetic

Models improve every month. Their knowledge still ends on a date.

Before / after

What a map gives your agent

Install

Tools

Why trust it

Self-hosting

Contributing a map

Status

Security

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Vibgrate AI Contextofficial

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API