Which integrations are available for this server?

Read-only MCP server for JFrog Artifactory repository intelligence, providing tools to list repositories, paths, fetch item metadata, properties, stats, and perform bounded file searches.

How do I use JFrog MCP?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@JFrog MCP list docker repositories" 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.

JFrog MCP

by mSaeedS

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

JFrog MCP

Read-only Model Context Protocol server for JFrog Artifactory repository intelligence.

This server is intentionally narrow. It lists repositories, lists explicit repository paths, fetches item metadata, fetches properties and stats, and performs bounded file searches. It does not deploy, delete, move, copy, mutate properties, run raw AQL, or download file content.

It is intended for MCP-compatible agents and clients that need safe Artifactory visibility without artifact download or repository mutation permissions.

Tools

jfrog_ping checks URL and token access without returning secrets.
jfrog_capabilities describes server limits, security settings, compatibility behavior, and optional live feature probes for a repo/path.
jfrog_list_repositories lists repositories with optional type, package_type, and project filters.
jfrog_list_path lists one repository path with bounded depth and cursor pagination. If Artifactory rejects the Pro-only storage list mode, it falls back to basic metadata children.
jfrog_get_item_info returns metadata for one file or folder.
jfrog_get_item_properties returns item properties as a separate storage query mode.
jfrog_get_item_stats returns download statistics as a separate storage query mode.
jfrog_get_tree returns a bounded file/folder tree using metadata traversal.
jfrog_find_files searches files with generic filters and response shaping.
jfrog_latest_files searches files and sorts the bounded result set by modified client-side.

The safe search tools intentionally avoid non-portable AQL fields and default server-side sorting, because some Artifactory OSS/CE installations reject those features. Use name_pattern for artifact-specific needs, such as *.jar, *.war, or *.zip, instead of adding artifact-specific tools.

All tools are annotated as read-only and non-destructive for MCP clients that use tool safety metadata.

Related MCP server: readonly-mcp-akamai

Resources

jfrog://repositories lists repositories.
jfrog://repo/{repoKey} lists the root path of one repository.
jfrog://repo/{repoKey}/path/{path} returns metadata for one repository path. Encode slashes in path as %2F, for example jfrog://repo/libs-release-local/path/com%2Facme.

Requirements

Python 3.11 or newer.
A JFrog Artifactory URL.
A least-privilege read-only JFrog access token.
Optional: Node.js 18 or newer if you use the npx wrapper.

Configuration

Set credentials through a local .env file, environment variables, or a mounted token file. Do not pass the token as a tool argument.

For local use, copy the template and edit the values:

Copy-Item .env.example .env
notepad .env

Minimal .env with a direct token:

JFROG_URL=https://example.jfrog.io
JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN=REPLACE_ME

Or use a token file:

New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force .secrets
Set-Content -NoNewline .secrets/jfrog-token "REPLACE_ME"

JFROG_URL=https://example.jfrog.io
JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN_FILE=.secrets/jfrog-token

JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN takes priority when both settings are present. Direct tokens are convenient for local agents and private runtime configuration. Token files are still useful for mounted secrets in containers, CI, Kubernetes, and OpenShift.

export JFROG_URL="https://example.jfrog.io"
export JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN="REPLACE_ME"

Optional settings:

export JFROG_MCP_TRANSPORT="stdio"
export JFROG_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_SECONDS="20"
export JFROG_DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE="50"
export JFROG_MAX_PAGE_SIZE="200"
export JFROG_MAX_DEPTH="5"
export JFROG_MAX_AQL_LIMIT="500"
export JFROG_CACHE_TTL_SECONDS="60"
export JFROG_VERIFY_SSL="true"
export JFROG_CA_BUNDLE="/etc/ssl/certs/company-ca.pem"
export JFROG_TRUST_ENV="false"
export JFROG_LOG_LEVEL="INFO"

JFROG_URL may be either the JFrog base URL, such as https://example.jfrog.io, or the Artifactory base URL, such as https://example.jfrog.io/artifactory.

Keep JFROG_VERIFY_SSL=true in production. If your Artifactory endpoint uses a private CA, set JFROG_CA_BUNDLE to the mounted PEM bundle instead of disabling verification.

JFROG_TRUST_ENV=false makes the HTTP client ignore proxy-related environment variables. Keep this default for internal Artifactory routes unless your deployment intentionally needs HTTP_PROXY or HTTPS_PROXY.

Install And Run

Clone the repository and install the Python package in a virtual environment:

git clone https://github.com/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp.git
cd jfrog-mcp
python -m venv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e .
jfrog-mcp

For Windows PowerShell:

git clone https://github.com/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp.git
Set-Location jfrog-mcp
python -m venv .venv
.\.venv\Scripts\Activate.ps1
pip install -e .
jfrog-mcp

The default transport is stdio. For Streamable HTTP:

JFROG_MCP_TRANSPORT=streamable-http jfrog-mcp

MCP Client Examples

Installed Python Command

If jfrog-mcp is installed in the environment where your MCP client runs:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jfrog": {
      "command": "jfrog-mcp",
      "env": {
        "JFROG_URL": "https://example.jfrog.io",
        "JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN": "REPLACE_ME"
      }
    }
  }
}

Local Clone

If your MCP client can start a command from a local clone:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jfrog": {
      "command": "python",
      "args": [
        "-m",
        "jfrog_mcp"
      ],
      "cwd": "/path/to/jfrog-mcp",
      "env": {
        "JFROG_URL": "https://example.jfrog.io",
        "JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN": "REPLACE_ME",
        "JFROG_TRUST_ENV": "false"
      }
    }
  }
}

On Windows, use a Windows path for cwd, for example C:\\Users\\you\\src\\jfrog-mcp.

npx From GitHub

For agents that expect an npx-style MCP command, use the included Node wrapper. The wrapper starts the Python MCP server, sets JFROG_ENV_FILE to the project .env when present, and preserves stdio for MCP protocol traffic.

Using this public GitHub repository:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "jfrog": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "github:mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp"
      ],
      "env": {
        "JFROG_URL": "https://example.jfrog.io",
        "JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN": "REPLACE_ME",
        "JFROG_TRUST_ENV": "false"
      }
    }
  }
}

For GitHub npx usage, the wrapper bootstraps a small Python virtual environment in the user cache on first run and installs the bundled Python package there. If your environment uses an internal Python package index, pass PIP_INDEX_URL or PIP_EXTRA_INDEX_URL through the MCP env.

If Windows, OneDrive, or another synced folder blocks the default npm cache, set a cache outside synced folders before running npx:

$env:npm_config_cache = "$env:TEMP\npm-cache"
npx -y "github:mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp" --version

Docker

docker build -t jfrog-mcp:latest .
docker run --rm -i \
  -e JFROG_URL="https://example.jfrog.io" \
  -e JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN="REPLACE_ME" \
  jfrog-mcp:latest

For HTTP transport:

docker run --rm -p 8000:8000 \
  -e JFROG_URL="https://example.jfrog.io" \
  -e JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN="REPLACE_ME" \
  -e JFROG_MCP_TRANSPORT="streamable-http" \
  jfrog-mcp:latest

Production Notes

Use a least-privilege read-only JFrog access token. Rotate it regularly and immediately after any accidental exposure.
Use JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN when your agent/runtime can inject secrets securely as environment variables. Use JFROG_ACCESS_TOKEN_FILE when your platform mounts secrets as files.
Set page, depth, and AQL limits for your environment with JFROG_MAX_PAGE_SIZE, JFROG_MAX_DEPTH, and JFROG_MAX_AQL_LIMIT.
Run jfrog_capabilities(live_probe=true, repo_key="...", path="...") against a representative repo to discover whether that Artifactory instance supports Pro storage listing or server-side AQL sort.
Restart the MCP client or server process after changing environment variables or code. Existing stdio MCP sessions keep their original process environment.
Treat JFROG_VERIFY_SSL=false as local troubleshooting only. Use JFROG_CA_BUNDLE for private CA deployments.

Tests

Install the development dependencies before running tests:

pip install -e ".[dev]"

python -m pytest

The tests use mocked HTTP transports and do not call a real JFrog instance.

Optional live tests run only when all of these are set:

export JFROG_TEST_URL="https://example.jfrog.io"
export JFROG_TEST_TOKEN="REPLACE_ME"
export JFROG_TEST_REPO="libs-release-local"
pytest tests/test_live_integration.py

Available Tools

10 tools

jfrog_capabilitiesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Describe JFrog MCP limits, compatibility behavior, and enabled features.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`repo_key`	No	Optional repository key used only when live_probe is true. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`live_probe`	No	When true, call the configured Artifactory instance to check storage-list and AQL-sort support for the supplied repo_key/path.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the conceptual content of the response but does not disclose the live_probe network-call behavior (though that is covered in the schema). 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description, combined with the rich schema and annotations, covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and safety. A minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that this is not a significant omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema already fully documents each parameter, including the dependency of repo_key on live_probe.

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 uses a specific verb 'Describe' with clear resources: 'JFrog MCP limits, compatibility behavior, and enabled features'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on data retrieval or connectivity (e.g., jfrog_ping, jfrog_get_item_info).

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when one needs to know the JFrog MCP server's limits, compatibility, and features. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to infer usage.

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

jfrog_find_filesB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find files with generic filters and response shaping.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Values below 1 are rejected; values above the configured server limit are clamped.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor returned by a previous response. Do not parse or construct cursor values client-side.
`repo_key`	No	Optional repository key to search. Required unless package_type is provided. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`name_pattern`	No	Optional file-name pattern for Artifactory AQL matching, such as .jar or .zip. Path separators, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`package_type`	No	Optional Artifactory package type filter. Valid values: bower, cargo, chef, cocoapods, composer, conan, cran, debian, docker, gems, generic, gitlfs, go, gradle, helm, ivy, maven, nuget, opkg, p2, pub, puppet, pypi, rpm, sbt, swift, terraform, vagrant, yum.
`summary_only`	No	Return only counts and an items_preview instead of the full item list.
`modified_after`	No	Optional inclusive lower bound for the modified timestamp. Accepts an ISO datetime or YYYY-MM-DD, which expands to the start of that UTC day.
`modified_before`	No	Optional inclusive upper bound for the modified timestamp. Accepts an ISO datetime or YYYY-MM-DD, which expands to the end of that UTC day.
`include_metadata`	No	Whether search results should include repo, type, size, and timestamps.
`include_full_path`	No	Whether search results should include path/name joined as full_path.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'response shaping,' but does not mention pagination via cursor, AQL pattern matching, or that results can be summarized—though these are discoverable in the schema.

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 a single sentence with no filler, making it maximally concise. It does not repeat schema details and earns its place by stating the tool's purpose in a straightforward manner.

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?

Given that the schema documents all parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. However, the absence of usage guidance and the minimal overview of what 'generic filters' encompasses leaves some gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'generic filters' provides a high-level hint but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already explains.

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 uses the verb 'Find' with the resource 'files' and specifies 'generic filters and response shaping', making the core function clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the phrase 'generic filters' suggests a flexible search capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of jfrog_list_path, jfrog_latest_files, or other siblings. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

jfrog_get_item_infoB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get metadata for one JFrog file or folder.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`repo_key`	Yes	JFrog repository key, for example libs-release-local. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'one file or folder' scoping constraint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what 'metadata' includes, return format, or any potential side effects, though none are expected given read-only 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple read-only tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the exact scope ('one file or folder') and purpose. It could be more explicit about what metadata is returned, but the output schema likely covers that, so missing detail is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully explains both parameters (repo_key and path) with constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for one JFrog file or folder', which defines the tool's scope. It differentiates from list-like siblings by specifying 'one', but does not explicitly contrast with similarly focused tools like jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats, so it misses full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as jfrog_get_item_properties or jfrog_get_item_stats. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

jfrog_get_item_propertiesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get properties for one JFrog file or folder.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`repo_key`	Yes	JFrog repository key, for example libs-release-local. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`property_keys`	No	Optional property keys to fetch. Entries are comma-free allow-listed JFrog property keys; omit to fetch all properties returned by Artifactory.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., behavior for repository root, property key filtering, or error handling), but it does not contradict the annotations and appropriately identifies the operation as read-only.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. It earns its place by stating the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, the output schema, and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the minimal description is sufficient. However, it lacks any contextual cues about property key filtering or how the path parameter relates to the repository root, which are left entirely to the schema.

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?

All three parameters have extensive descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Get properties for one JFrog file or folder' with a specific verb, resource, and object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jfrog_get_item_stats and jfrog_list_path by focusing on properties for a single item.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as jfrog_get_item_info or jfrog_find_files. It relies entirely on the tool name and minimal description, offering only implied usage without exclusions or alternatives.

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

jfrog_get_item_statsB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get download statistics for one JFrog file or folder.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`repo_key`	Yes	JFrog repository key, for example libs-release-local. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds scope ('one file or folder') but no details on behavior like statistics aggregation, time ranges, or potential errors. It is not contradictory.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks usage context and does not explain what 'statistics' encompasses, though the output schema may cover that.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both path and repo_key, including validation rules. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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's action ('Get') and resource ('download statistics') for a single JFrog file or folder. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistics, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over other siblings such as jfrog_get_item_info or jfrog_list_path. It lacks conditions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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

jfrog_get_treeB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a bounded file/folder tree using storage metadata traversal.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`depth`	No	Traversal depth. Defaults by tool and is capped by the configured JFROG_MAX_DEPTH value.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Values below 1 are rejected; values above the configured server limit are clamped.
`repo_key`	Yes	JFrog repository key, for example libs-release-local. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`include_files`	No	Whether file entries should be included in the response.
`include_folders`	No	Whether folder entries should be included in the response.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tree is 'bounded' and uses 'storage metadata traversal', which provides some behavioral context, but no additional details on ordering, pagination, or exception handling. 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the core function without any wasted words or redundant details.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, all schema-documented, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description leaves 'bounded' somewhat ambiguous and lacks any contextual guidance about when to use a tree traversal versus a flat list or other sibling tool, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in detail including defaults and validation rules. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('bounded file/folder tree') with a method ('storage metadata traversal'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like jfrog_list_path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as jfrog_list_path, jfrog_find_files, and jfrog_latest_files exist, but the description offers no comparison or exclusionary guidance.

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

jfrog_latest_filesB

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find latest files by client-side modified timestamp sorting.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Values below 1 are rejected; values above the configured server limit are clamped.
`repo_key`	No	Optional repository key to search. Required unless package_type is provided. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`scan_limit`	No	Maximum number of matching files to scan before client-side latest-file sorting. Values are clamped to the server AQL scan limit.
`name_pattern`	No	Optional file-name pattern for Artifactory AQL matching, such as .jar or .zip. Path separators, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`package_type`	No	Optional Artifactory package type filter. Valid values: bower, cargo, chef, cocoapods, composer, conan, cran, debian, docker, gems, generic, gitlfs, go, gradle, helm, ivy, maven, nuget, opkg, p2, pub, puppet, pypi, rpm, sbt, swift, terraform, vagrant, yum.
`modified_after`	No	Optional inclusive lower bound for the modified timestamp. Accepts an ISO datetime or YYYY-MM-DD, which expands to the start of that UTC day.
`modified_before`	No	Optional inclusive upper bound for the modified timestamp. Accepts an ISO datetime or YYYY-MM-DD, which expands to the end of that UTC day.
`include_metadata`	No	Whether search results should include repo, type, size, and timestamps.
`include_full_path`	No	Whether search results should include path/name joined as full_path.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds 'client-side modified timestamp sorting,' which is useful, but does not mention limits, clamping, or other runtime behavior beyond what schema fields imply.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is too minimal for a 10-parameter tool with many siblings. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, or any narrative that would help an agent decide when to invoke it. The schema covers the 'what' but the description does not cover the 'when' or 'why'.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, making the baseline 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides comprehensive documentation for each parameter.

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 finds latest files sorted by client-side modified timestamp, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from generic file search. However, it could be more explicit about the repository context, but that is covered in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like jfrog_find_files exist, and the description does not explain what makes this tool the better choice for latest-file scenarios.

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

jfrog_list_pathB

Read-onlyIdempotent

List files and folders under one JFrog repository path.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Repository-relative path using forward slashes. Omit, empty string, '.', or '/' for the repository root; '..', backslashes, raw URLs, and control characters are rejected.
`depth`	No	Traversal depth. Defaults by tool and is capped by the configured JFROG_MAX_DEPTH value.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Values below 1 are rejected; values above the configured server limit are clamped.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor returned by a previous response. Do not parse or construct cursor values client-side.
`repo_key`	Yes	JFrog repository key, for example libs-release-local. Raw URLs, path separators, and control characters are rejected.
`include_folders`	No	Whether folder entries should be included in the response.
`include_timestamps`	No	Whether storage-list responses should request metadata timestamps when the Artifactory instance supports that mode.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination via cursor, depth defaults, or that it uses the storage-list API. This is a minimal 'list' description that contributes little beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and immediately informative.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters incl. cursor/depth/limit, output schema, and annotations), the description is only minimally viable. The schema and annotations fill in many details, but the description lacks an overview of pagination, configurable options, or overall behavior, making it just adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a thorough description (e.g., path accepts root forms, limit clamping, cursor opacity). The description itself adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies—schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('List') and a clear resource ('files and folders under one JFrog repository path'). This distinguishes it from siblings like jfrog_list_repositories and jfrog_get_tree, though it doesn't specify whether the listing is recursive or immediate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jfrog_get_tree or jfrog_find_files. There are no exclusions or context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

jfrog_list_repositoriesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

List JFrog repositories with optional filters and cursor pagination.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	Optional repository type filter. Valid values: local, remote, virtual, federated, distribution.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return. Values below 1 are rejected; values above the configured server limit are clamped.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor returned by a previous response. Do not parse or construct cursor values client-side.
`project`	No	Optional JFrog project key filter. Uses the same allow-list as repository keys.
`package_type`	No	Optional Artifactory package type filter. Valid values: bower, cargo, chef, cocoapods, composer, conan, cran, debian, docker, gems, generic, gitlfs, go, gradle, helm, ivy, maven, nuget, opkg, p2, pub, puppet, pypi, rpm, sbt, swift, terraform, vagrant, yum.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait of cursor-based pagination, which is not in annotations and is useful context for the agent. It does not go into rate limits or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is informative. 'List JFrog repositories with optional filters and cursor pagination' is concise and complete for the tool's core purpose, with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional params, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the core listing function and pagination, but could be more complete by mentioning how filters interact (e.g., AND combination) or providing guidance on use cases. Still, the presence of output schema and annotations fills many gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (type, limit, cursor, project, package_type) having a clear description. The tool description only says 'optional filters' without adding any new meaning, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists JFrog repositories, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'repositories'. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_list_path and jfrog_find_files, and adds scope with 'optional filters and cursor pagination'.

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 implies usage for listing repositories and mentions optional filters and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to prefer jfrog_find_files or jfrog_list_path). No exclusions or alternative references are given, so guidance is only implicit.

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

jfrog_pingA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check JFrog URL and token authentication without returning secrets.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavior that it does not return secrets, which goes beyond annotations and is valuable for security-awareness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no stale or redundant text. It efficiently states the action, the target, and a key safety constraint.

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 zero-parameter ping tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, safety, and distinguishes from siblings; return values are covered by the output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-specific information. According to the rubric, a zero-param tool gets a baseline of 4, and no further clarification is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'JFrog URL and token authentication,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on items or lists. It also adds the important nuance of not returning secrets.

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 implies the tool is for verifying connectivity/authentication but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions are provided, but the purpose is self-evident for a ping 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.

10 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026
- First observedjfrog_capabilities
- First observedjfrog_find_files
- First observedjfrog_get_item_info
- First observedjfrog_get_item_properties
- First observedjfrog_get_item_stats
- First observedjfrog_get_tree
- First observedjfrog_latest_files
- First observedjfrog_list_path
- First observedjfrog_list_repositories
- First observedjfrog_ping

Install Server

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: health check, capabilities, repository listing, path listing, item metadata, properties, stats, tree traversal, file search, and latest files. The only potential ambiguity is between get_item_info and get_item_properties, but the descriptions clarify that info is general metadata while properties are specific key-value pairs.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent get_/list_/find_ verb-noun pattern (e.g., get_item_properties, list_repositories, find_files). Minor deviations exist: jfrog_ping and jfrog_capabilities are verb/noun alone, and jfrog_latest_files uses an adjective instead of a verb, but the overall style is coherent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. Each tool addresses a specific task within the artifact repository domain, and the count feels neither sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the read-only/query surface thoroughly: repository listing, path browsing, metadata, properties, statistics, tree traversal, file search, and recent files. It lacks write operations (create/update/delete), but the tools are clearly scoped to inspection and discovery, so the absence does not create dead ends for its apparent purpose.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

turva-mcp A
dev.turva
Read-only MCP server for turva.dev, an agent-readiness audit and advisory service.
Autonomous Agents Security Developer Tools
42
ORANO MCP Server
io.github.infotik
Read-only MCP server exposing a user ORANO library to their own AI agent.
1
AIStatusDashboard
io.github.aistatusdashboard
Read-only MCP server for AIStatusDashboard status, incidents, metrics, and fallback recommendations.
Monitoring Observability
2
apis-io B
io.apis
Read-only MCP server over the APIs.io catalog — discover APIs, providers, tags & artifacts.
Search Developer Tools Documentation Access
1332

Related MCP Servers

Sourceplane MCP
Version Control Code Analysis
infraWS
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Secure multi-source MCP server for reading local, GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and network source code with read-only-by-default access, enabling AI assistants to inspect repositories safely.
Updated 25 days ago (2026-08-12 20:41 UTC)
1
MIT
readonly-mcp-akamai
Networking & Infrastructure Cloud Platforms
desty2k
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Read-only MCP server for Akamai CDN that enables searching properties, browsing EdgeWorker code, querying DNS zones, inspecting network lists, and translating error codes via natural language.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-28 20:26 UTC)
16
1
MIT
CodeAudit MCP
Code Analysis Testing & QA Tools Developer Tools
priyanshuchawda
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
A read-only MCP server for AI coding agents to inspect repositories, audit code quality, route engineering skills, and plan safe issue/PR workflows.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-04 04:27 UTC)
1
MIT
hdc-nexus-mcp-server
Developer Tools CI/CD & DevOps
himurafred
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Read-only MCP server for searching and listing components in Nexus Repository Manager 3 (Docker, Maven, npm, PyPI, etc.) with tools for repositories, components, Docker tags, and latest version.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-06 09:41 UTC)
-

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/mSaeedS/jfrog-mcp'

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