Search and discover 24,500+ MCP servers and AI agents. Semantic search, trust scores, vulnerability tracking.
Server exposes 6 well-named, read-only tools with complete Zod schemas and reasonable descriptions. All tools follow verb_noun naming (search_servers, list_servers, get_server, discover, etc.). Descriptions are present and contextual (avg ~120 chars), meeting the 10 - 1024 char baseline. However, parameter descriptions lack actionable constraints (e.g., 'limit' has no min/max bounds; 'sort' enum values are listed but not explained when to use each). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. Error handling is absent: no recovery guidance, no categorization of retryable vs fatal errors. All tools are READ_ONLY (safe), but the server lacks composition guidance (e.g., when to call search_servers vs discover vs list_servers). Parameter naming is clear (query, limit, category, sort, budget) but some lack type hints in descriptions (e.g., 'budget' should state 'USD, numeric').
Find the best MCP server or AI agent for a task. Returns top recommendations with reasoning.
Get aggregate statistics: total servers, agents, categories, sources, and health metrics.
Get full details for a specific MCP server including tools, trust breakdown, install commands, and framework compatibility.
Check known CVE/GHSA vulnerabilities for an MCP server's dependencies.
Browse MCP servers with filtering and sorting. Use for category browsing or top-N queries.
Semantic search across 24,500+ MCP servers and AI agents by task description. Returns ranked results with trust scores.
No output schema documentation. LLMs cannot predict response structure (fields, types, nesting). Responses are JSON-stringified text, not structured objects.
Parameter constraints lack actionable bounds. 'limit' accepts 1-50 but no min/max validation stated in description. 'budget' is numeric but no currency/range guidance. LLMs may pass invalid values.
No error handling or recovery guidance. If API returns 404 or 500, LLM receives raw error text with no actionable next steps. No categorization of retryable vs fatal errors.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 59 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Tool composition unclear. No guidance on when to use search_servers vs discover vs list_servers. Descriptions do not explain dependencies or preferred call sequences.
Parameter descriptions lack type hints and units. 'budget' should state 'USD, numeric, optional'. 'sort' enum values (relevance, trust, stars, updated) are not explained, when should LLM pick each?