Apex Log MCP Server
OfficialThis server gives AI assistants tools to analyze Salesforce Apex debug logs, surfacing performance bottlenecks, slow methods, and governor limit usage.
Analyze Apex Log Performance (
analyze_apex_log_performance): Rank methods in an Apex debug log by self-execution time, returning method names, durations (in ms), SOQL/DML counts, and optimization recommendations. Supports filtering by namespace, minimum duration, and limiting results.Get Apex Log Summary (
get_apex_log_summary): Retrieve a high-level overview of an Apex debug log, including total execution time, method count, SOQL/DML totals, governor limits, and active namespaces — ideal for a quick assessment before deeper analysis.Find Performance Bottlenecks (
find_performance_bottlenecks): Check whether a transaction is approaching Salesforce governor limits (flags usage above 80%), analyzing CPU time, SOQL/DML limits, query rows, and method execution patterns by namespace. Supports focused analysis types:cpu,database,methods, orall.Execute Anonymous Apex (
execute_anonymous): Execute Apex code against an authenticated Salesforce org, save the debug log, and provide a summary for subsequent detailed analysis with other tools. (Described in the README but may not be present in the current server schema.)
Provides tools to analyze Salesforce Apex debug logs for performance bottlenecks, slow methods, and governor limit usage, and allows executing anonymous Apex against Salesforce orgs.
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., "@Apex Log MCP ServerFind the top 5 slowest methods in this debug log and their durations"
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.
Apex Log MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that gives AI assistants tools to analyze Salesforce Apex debug logs — surfacing performance bottlenecks, slow methods, and governor limit usage.
Give your AI assistant — Claude, Copilot, or any MCP-compatible client — the ability to parse Apex debug logs and surface the performance insights that matter. Instead of scrolling through thousands of log lines, ask your assistant to find what's slow and why.
Powered by the same powerful log parser as the Apex Log Analyzer VS Code extension used by thousands of Salesforce developers.
Quick Start | What You Can Do | Token Cost | Tools Reference | Configuration | How It Works | Documentation | Contributing | Contributors | License
Quick Start
Requirements: Node.js 22 or later.
The apexlog_execute_anonymous tool additionally needs an org authenticated with the Salesforce CLI.
Add to your MCP client configuration (claude_desktop_config.json, VS Code mcp.json, etc.):
{
"mcpServers": {
"apex-log-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@certinia/apex-log-mcp"]
}
}
}That's it. Open a conversation and ask your AI assistant to analyze an Apex debug log.
Related MCP server: Log Reader MCP
What You Can Do
Ask your AI assistant to work with Apex debug logs using natural language:
"Give me a summary of this debug log"
"Show me the 5 slowest methods in the default namespace"
"Are we approaching any governor limits in this transaction?"
"Run this Apex against my scratch org and analyze the performance"
Token Cost
Enabling the tools
Every request carries all four tool definitions, whether or not a tool is called. That is the standing cost of having the server connected, and each figure is the whole definition as the client receives it — name, title, description, input schema and annotations together.
Tool | Tokens | 1.x | Change |
| ~606 | ~247 | +145% |
| ~421 | ~844 | -50% |
| ~192 | ~267 | -28% |
| ~174 | ~171 | +2% |
Total | ~1,393 (0.7% of a 200K context) | ~1,529 | -9% |
Calling a tool
The input side is the same for every analysis tool — a tool name and a log file path, about 15 tokens — so what a call costs is what it returns. Each row is one tool answering the same log, beside what 1.x returned for it — the same facts, in a cheaper shape.
What a call costs does not scale with the log. The response is bounded by its shape — a fixed table of governor limits, and a row cap on the ranked operations — and not by the bytes parsed. The log measured below is a 40 KB slice of the Apex Log Analyzer sample log; against the unsliced 19.7 MB original, apexlog_get_summary returns ~374 tokens rather than the ~364 below, and apexlog_list_limit_risks returns the same ~39.
Tool | Response | 1.x | Change |
| ~364 | ~293 | +24% |
| ~396 | ~408 | -3% |
| ~39 | ~84 | -54% |
Tools Reference
All tools return TOON-encoded data, kept deliberately lean to save tokens — without dropping anything you might need to ask about. See Token Cost for what that is worth in practice.
Every governor limit, debug category and operation column is returned, including the ones at zero. "How many DML statements did this consume?" is answerable from the response, and
0means none rather than not measured.The leanness comes from shape. Data that used to be nested objects is returned as flat tables, which TOON encodes as one header plus one line per row.
Nothing is reported twice. No prose summary restates the numbers in the table alongside it, and no figure appears in two places.
Durations are rounded to 3 decimal places (ms) and percentages to 1.
Only what did not happen is omitted — the fatal errors that ended a transaction, how a partial log lost content and how much, and the query plans behind the ranked rows. Nothing to report means the key is absent; every other field reports its zero.
apexlog_list_slow_operations
Rank what an Apex debug log spent its time on by self-execution time — code units, methods, queries, searches, DML, flows and workflows in one table, each row with its calls, durations (in ms), database counts and rows, beside the query optimizer's plan for the queries among them. Best for finding what to optimize.
Rows are {debugCategory, type, name, namespace, callCount, durationTotalMs, durationSelfMs, durationSelfMaxMs, selfPercentage, soqlCount, dmlCount, soslCount, rowCount, thrownCount}, beside the transaction's durationTotalMs, the returnedSelfPercentage the returned rows account for between them, and the matchedCount the selection matched before paging cut it. durationSelfMaxMs is the self time of the slowest single call in a grouped row — read against durationSelfMs it tells one bad call from sheer volume — and is absent when each row is one call already.
Both classification columns come straight from the log. debugCategory is the Salesforce debug log category the platform stamped on the event — apexCode, database, system, visualforce, workflow, and so on — which is the category that decided whether the event was written at all, and the same spelling apexlog_execute_anonymous takes as input. type is the log's own event type, which is what the category cannot say: SOQL_EXECUTE_BEGIN, SOSL_EXECUTE_BEGIN and DML_BEGIN all sit under database, and an ENTERING_MANAGED_PKG row — the time a package spent where the log shows nothing, often most of a transaction — sits under apexCode beside the methods it hides.
sortBy: "heapSelfNetBytes" ranks by the heap each row's own code retained instead of by time, adding a heapSelfNetBytes column and a returnedHeapPercentage scalar — the share of the transaction's retained heap the returned rows carry, which the rows cannot imply and no other tool reports. Both are absent from a ranking that did not ask for them. The figure is the signed HEAP_ALLOCATE bytes, so a row that released more than it took reads below zero, and an allocation reaches the log only at APEX_CODE,FINER and above — the apexCode row of capturedAt says whether a zero can be real.
capturedAt gives {debugCategory, level} for each category among the returned rows, so the levels join to the rows on the same key.
queryPlans gives what the query optimizer decided about the queries behind the returned rows — {leadingOperationType, relativeCost, cardinality, sObjectCardinality}, where a relativeCost above 1 means the optimizer will not treat the query as selective. It is absent when the log explained none of them, which the database row of capturedAt explains: an explain line is written at database,FINEST alone. Each plan names its row as operationRow, the 1-based line of operations as returned — except under a namespace, callerNamespace or debugCategory grouping, where the row is not named after the query and the plan carries the query text as name instead.
A page is bounded by size as well as by limit, so you can get fewer rows than you asked for. matchedCount above the rows returned is what says so; advance offset by the rows you got, not by limit.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) |
| string[] | No | Rank only these debug log categories |
| string[] | No | Rank only these log event types, e.g. |
| string[] | No | Rank only these namespaces |
| number | No | Drop operations below this self time (default: 0) |
| number | No | Page size (default: 10); fewer if the page would be too large |
| number | No | Ranked rows to skip (default: 0) |
| string | No | Fold repeats into one row by |
| string | No | Rank on |
apexlog_get_summary
Get a high-level summary of an Apex debug log: how long the transaction ran (in ms), where the time went by debug log category, every governor limit it and each namespace consumed, the debug levels it was logged at, whether the log is complete, and what ended the transaction if it failed. Best for a quick overview before deeper analysis.
All thirteen governor limits are listed as {limit, used, max} rows, at zero included, so you can ask what a transaction consumed and get an answer either way. limitsByNamespace adds {namespace, limit, used} rows for each limit a namespace consumed, which is how you see that a managed package spent your CPU time; it names no ceiling, because the parser keeps one ceiling per limit for the whole transaction and it is already in governorLimits.
timeByCategory gives {debugCategory, operationCount, durationSelfMs, selfPercentage} for all eleven debug log categories, at zero included. The category is the one that decided whether an operation was written to the log at all, so a zero can be read against debugLevels, whose rows are {debugCategory, level}: database 0 beside database NONE means the queries were not logged, and beside database FINEST it means none ran. Three categories — dataAccess, wave and validation — can only ever be zero, because no timed event carries them.
truncated says whether the log is complete — every figure in a partial one is a floor, not a total. Where the platform is what cut it, truncatedBy names how (skipped-lines for a hole in the middle, max-size for a tail never written) and skippedBytes how much it dropped; both are absent on a log that merely stops mid-frame, which the platform did not cut and states no byte count for. thrownCount is how many exceptions were thrown, at zero included. fatalErrors gives {message, frames} for each failure that ended a transaction, and is absent when none did; frames holds the innermost three stack frames, with a trailing … where there were more. It is the only field that says a transaction did not finish, which decides what every other figure means — a fatal error need breach no governor limit, so nothing else in the response reveals one.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) |
apexlog_list_limit_risks
List the governor limits an Apex log transaction has nearly consumed — CPU time, heap, SOQL and SOSL queries, DML statements, and the rows each returned or wrote — worst first, with how much of each was used. Best for checking whether a transaction is at risk of failing on a limit.
Rows are {limit, used, max, usedPercentage}. The threshold that produced them is reported alongside, so an empty table reads as "nothing is that far consumed" rather than as a missing answer.
capturedAt gives {debugCategory, level} for the two categories that decide whether a limit figure was written at all: apexProfiling, which gates the cumulative limit blocks every limit but heap is read from, and apexCode, which gates the heap allocations behind heapSize.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) |
| number | No | Report a limit once it is this percentage consumed (default: 80) |
apexlog_execute_anonymous
Executes anonymous Apex code against any authenticated Salesforce org. Saves the resulting debug log to a local file and returns a summary with the file path. Use the file path with apexlog_get_summary, apexlog_list_slow_operations, or apexlog_list_limit_risks for deeper analysis.
Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
| string | Yes | The anonymous Apex to be executed |
| string | No | Alias or username of the target Salesforce org. Uses the project default if not specified. |
| string | No | Directory to save the debug log file. Defaults to |
| string | object | No | Trace-flag log levels — see the options below. Omit to keep the current config. |
debugLevel options — omit to keep the current config, or pass one of:
"default"— reset every category to its default.a log level (e.g.
"FINEST") — set every category to that level.an object — override specific categories only; the rest keep their defaults:
{ "database": "FINEST", "apexCode": "FINE" }
Valid levels: NONE, ERROR, WARN, INFO, DEBUG, FINE, FINER, FINEST.
Category | Default Level |
| FINE |
| FINE |
| DEBUG |
| FINEST |
| INFO |
| DEBUG |
| DEBUG |
| FINE |
| INFO |
| FINE |
Example prompts:
"Execute this Apex and show me the log:
System.debug('Hello');""Run a query for all Accounts and analyze the performance"
"Execute this Apex with all debug levels set to FINEST"
"Run this Apex against my QA org with database logging set to FINEST"
Note: Uses the project's default org unless
targetOrgis specified. Sandbox, scratch, Developer Edition and trial orgs run without prompting; production orgs are gated — see Production safety. The debug log is saved to a local file (default:.apex-log-mcp/) and the response includes the file path, org username (and alias, if set), org type, and execution summary. Add.apex-log-mcp/to your.gitignoreto avoid committing debug logs.
Configuration
The Quick Start configuration is all you need — all four tools are available by default. The sections below cover the production safety policy and how to change it.
Production safety
apexlog_execute_anonymous runs arbitrary Apex, so before running anything the server identifies what kind of org it is pointed at. It asks the org once per session:
Org type | Identified by | Behaviour |
|
| Runs |
|
| Runs |
| Not a sandbox, has a trial expiry | Runs |
| Developer Edition | Runs |
| Anything else | Confirmation required |
| The org could not be queried | Confirmation required |
For a production org, the server:
Runs it anyway if the server was started with
--allow-production-orgs.Otherwise asks you to confirm, if your MCP client supports elicitation. The prompt names the org and shows the Apex.
Otherwise refuses, and the error explains both ways to proceed.
An org that cannot be identified is treated as production, so a network or permissions problem can never silently downgrade a production org.
Server flags
Flag | Description |
| Treat production orgs like any other — no confirmation prompt, no refusal. Only set this if production targets are intentional. |
| Disable Apex execution entirely. The tool stays visible so agents know it exists, but every call is refused. The three log analysis tools are unaffected. |
For an analysis-only deployment:
{
"mcpServers": {
"apex-log-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@certinia/apex-log-mcp", "--no-apex-execution"]
}
}
}How It Works
This server implements the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to expose Apex log analysis as tools that any MCP-compatible AI client can call.
Runs as a local process — your AI client spawns the server and communicates locally. No network requests, no API keys.
Uses the same parser as the Apex Log Analyzer VS Code extension — battle-tested parsing of the Apex debug log format.
Returns structured data — all durations in milliseconds, governor limits as used/max rows, operations with SOQL/DML counts — so your AI assistant can reason about the results.
Keeps responses lean — TOON tables and no duplicated figures, so more of the context window is left for reasoning. The fields stay, including the ones at zero: see Tools Reference.
Parses a log once, not once per tool — a summary followed by a deeper analysis of the same file reuses the parse, so a large log is read and parsed one time.
Documentation
Related Projects
Apex Log Analyzer VS Code Extension — Full-featured Apex log analyzer for VS Code
Contributing
We welcome contributions! Please see our Contributing Guide for details.
Developing — Set up your development environment
Code of Conduct — Community guidelines
Contributors
Thanks to our amazing contributors!
License
Available Tools
3 toolsanalyze_apex_log_performanceAnalyze Apex Log PerformanceARead-onlyIdempotent
Rank methods in an Apex debug log by self-execution time. Returns method names, durations (in ms), SOQL/DML counts, and optimization recommendations. Best for finding which specific methods to optimize.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Filter methods by namespace | |
| topMethods | No | Number of slowest methods to return (default: 10) | |
| logFilePath | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) | |
| minDuration | No | Minimum duration in milliseconds to include a method (default: 0) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by specifying return fields (method names, durations, SOQL/DML counts, optimization recommendations). No behavioral contradictions.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines action and output, second states best use case. No filler, every sentence adds value.
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?
With 4 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema, and clear specification of return fields (method names, durations, SOQL/DML counts, optimization recommendations), the description is complete for a read-only analysis tool.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (namespace, topMethods, logFilePath, minDuration). Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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 verb 'Rank methods' and the resource 'Apex debug log', with specific output details. It distinguishes from siblings like find_performance_bottlenecks and get_apex_log_summary by focusing on ranking by self-execution time.
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?
Explicitly states 'Best for finding which specific methods to optimize', indicating when to use. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_performance_bottlenecksFind Performance BottlenecksARead-onlyIdempotent
Check whether an Apex log transaction is approaching governor limits (flags usage above 80%). Analyzes CPU time, SOQL/DML limits, query rows, and method execution patterns by namespace. Best for checking if a transaction is at risk of hitting governor limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logFilePath | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) | |
| analysisType | No | Type of analysis: "cpu" checks CPU time governor limit, "database" checks SOQL query/DML statement/query row limits, "methods" groups methods by namespace with duration totals, "all" runs all three (default) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 80% threshold and details about analysis types, providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 concise two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and threshold, with no superfluous information.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so describing return values would be beneficial. The description lacks details on what the analysis outputs (e.g., flagged limits, percentages), leaving some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the threshold context but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions.
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 tool checks if an Apex log transaction is approaching governor limits, with a specific threshold (80%). It lists the types of analysis (CPU time, SOQL/DML limits, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on risk of hitting limits.
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 mentions 'Best for checking if a transaction is at risk of hitting governor limits,' implying the primary use case but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_apex_log_summaryGet Apex Log SummaryARead-onlyIdempotent
Get a high-level summary of an Apex debug log including total execution time (in ms), method count, SOQL/DML totals, governor limits, and active namespaces. Best for a quick overview before deeper analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| logFilePath | Yes | Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate safe read-only operations. Description adds behavioral detail on output contents (SOQL/DML totals, governor limits). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key output details. No unnecessary 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 one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. Sibling tools provide context for differentiation.
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 provides full parameter meaning ('Absolute path to the Apex debug log file (.log)'). Description adds no further detail on the parameter beyond the schema.
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 'Get[s] a high-level summary of an Apex debug log' and lists specific contents (execution time, method count, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings as 'Best for a quick overview before deeper analysis.'
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?
Explicitly states 'Best for a quick overview before deeper analysis,' implying use before more detailed tools like analyze_apex_log_performance. Sibling tool names are available for context.
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.
3 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
analyze_apex_log_performance - First observed
find_performance_bottlenecks - First observed
get_apex_log_summary
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one ranks methods by performance, one checks governor limit usage, and one provides a high-level summary. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, with 'apex_log' as a common prefix. The naming is predictable and readable.
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of Apex log analysis. Each tool earns its place by covering a core aspect of the task without redundancy.
The set covers the main use cases: overview, method-level analysis, and limit checking. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for comparing logs or fetching raw logs), but these are not critical for the stated purpose.
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
The Polar Signals MCP server enables AI assistants to connect directly with performance profiling data, allowing users to analyze application performance through natural language queries. Key capabilities include querying CPU performance and memory usage, exploring profiling metadata like profile types and labels, and providing AI-driven code optimization suggestions directly within development environments like Claude Code or Cursor.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Analytics and debugging for your MCP server — explore usage and sessions, then root-cause errors.
Query application logs, traces, and metrics from your AI coding assistant via Foam's MCP server.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server for AI-powered log analysis that enables parsing, searching, and debugging across nine log formats directly within Claude. It features automated error extraction, sensitive data scanning, and streaming support for large log files.145MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides AI assistants with direct access to application logs for on-demand searching, filtering, and analysis. It enables tools like Cursor to summarize log entries and identify errors within the development environment to streamline debugging.197MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that analyzes AI agent session logs to find token waste and optimization opportunities.20MIT

flyto-indexerofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that gives AI assistants impact analysis, cross-project reference tracking, and code health scoring.4Apache 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 .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/certinia/debug-log-analyzer-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server