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., "@makebracket-mcp tell me about makebracket"
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.
Bracket maker - Make Bracket Online
A Model Context Protocol server that exposes the canonical Make Bracket Online knowledge surface — browser editing workflows, local processing, and safety boundaries, FAQ, official links — to MCP-compatible AI clients such as Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and Continue. Read-only, no API keys, no quota, ~50 ms cold start.
Official website: https://makebracket.online
Make Bracket Online is a no-sign-up bracket workspace for decisions, tournaments, and group votes. It provides single-elimination, double-elimination, round-robin, random, printable, and voting bracket makers, plus a World Cup 2026 prediction archive.
Users can add options, pick winners, share a bracket or invite link, and export a polished result card. This MCP describes the public bracket formats and entry points as read-only context; it does not create a live bracket, submit a vote, or predict an event on a user's behalf.
The live site is the source of truth for current templates, results, and sharing behavior. Core tools are available without an account, but external event outcomes and any shared bracket state can change.
Related MCP server: palsaveeditor-mcp
get_editor_scopeReturn the editor workflow and the documented limits on local processing or export. (Make Bracket Online)
Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.
get_official_linksReturn the canonical list of official links for Make Bracket Online (website, support, docs when available).
Input: no parameters. Returns: text/markdown.
site://makebracket/workbench — Public editing workflow, local-processing model, and documented safety limits.
site://makebracket/faq — Short FAQ generated from public site metadata.
site://makebracket/links — Canonical URLs to share with users.
tell_me_about_makebracketSummarize what the site is, who it's for, and how it works. — Make Bracket Online
review_edit_scope_makebracketReview an editing workflow without promising unsupported file mutation. — Make Bracket Online
npx -y @smithery/cli install makebracket-mcp --client claude(Replace claude with cursor, windsurf, or continue for those clients.)
git clone https://github.com/rocnubie/makebracket-mcp.git
cd makebracket-mcp
pnpm installThen add to your MCP client config (claude_desktop_config.json for Claude Desktop, mcp.json for Cursor / Windsurf / Continue):
{
"mcpServers": {
"makebracket-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/makebracket-mcp/src/index.mjs"
]
}
}
}npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node src/index.mjsWebsite: https://makebracket.online
pnpm install
pnpm start # run the server over stdioMIT
Return the editor workflow and the documented limits on local processing or export. (Make Bracket Online)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what is returned without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for a tool with zero 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?
The description is one sentence with a parenthetical note, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the main information. However, the parenthetical '(Make Bracket Online)' is slightly unclear and may be extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate in stating what is returned. However, it lacks details on the format or structure of the output, which would improve completeness. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and by baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. It adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'editor workflow' and 'documented limits on local processing or export'. This clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_official_links', which likely returns links.
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 implies the tool is used to retrieve editor workflow and limits but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the canonical list of official links for Make Bracket Online (website, support, docs when available).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns a canonical list but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, or how the list is generated. For a simple read operation with no parameters, this is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence containing 15 words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and what 'official links' includes. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the read-only nature or the dynamicity of the list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'canonical list of official links for Make Bracket Online', which is distinct from the sibling tool 'get_editor_scope'. It specifies the types of links (website, support, docs) making the purpose very clear.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative sibling tool 'get_editor_scope'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0get_editor_scopeget_official_linksThe two tools are clearly distinct: one retrieves editor scope and limits, the other returns official links. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'get_ + noun_phrase' pattern (get_editor_scope, get_official_links), making naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the set is borderline for an MCP server. While they cover specific informational needs, the count feels thin and limits the server's usefulness.
The tools cover only retrieval of two pieces of information about Make Bracket Online. Notable gaps include any operational tools or broader service capabilities, making the surface incomplete.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Manage your Lnk.Bio page through AI: links, pages, themes, social icons, and more.
AI agent website builder. Create and publish link-in-bio sites via MCP or REST API.
Search evidence-backed AI-tool reviews, rankings, use cases, comparisons & toolkits (read-only).
Read-only MCP server for Flamel.ai's public content: company overview, blog, case studies, FAQs.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rocnubie/makebracket-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
