Glama vs mcp.so vs PulseMCP — which MCP directory is best?

PUBLISHED 2026-08-10

There isn't a single “best” — the three compete on genuinely different things. Glama scores tool-definition quality at scale; mcp.so has the broadest raw catalog and the least vetting; PulseMCP pairs hand review with fast daily updates. None of the three publishes a safety/vulnerability grade or a measured false-positive rate, which is the specific gap aimcplist exists to fill.

Directory	Scale	Approach
Glama	10,000+ servers	Automated, continuous, per-tool scoring (TDQS)
mcp.so	17,000+ servers	Broadest raw catalog, community-driven
PulseMCP	20,000+ servers	Hand-reviewed, daily-updated

Server counts moved significantly across 2026 in every source checked for this page — treat these as approximate, dated 2026-08-10, and check each directory directly for a current figure.

§1 — Glama

Glama's Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS) rates each tool 1–5 across six weighted dimensions — purpose clarity, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, conciseness, and contextual completeness — combined into a letter grade (A ≥3.5 down to F <1.0). Important precision: TDQS measures how clearly and safely a tool's own definition is written, which reduces the kind of ambiguity tool poisoning exploits — it is not a vulnerability or CVE scan. Also functions as a registry, inspector, and gateway, not just a listing directory.

§2 — mcp.so

The largest server count of the three by a wide margin, positioned as a discovery marketplace rather than a graded directory — includes a playground for testing a server's tools directly, and a pay-per-call (x402/USDC) settlement option for some listed servers. No independent safety or quality scoring system was found in available research; it optimizes for coverage and discoverability, not vetting.

§3 — PulseMCP

Started as the largest hand-reviewed MCP directory and has scaled its catalog significantly over 2026 while keeping daily updates and community/official-provider classifications. Pairs the directory with a newsletter (The Agentic Loop) covering the ecosystem. Hand review here is about curation and categorization, not a published, versioned safety methodology.

Where aimcplist is different

aimcplist isn't trying to out-list any of these three on raw count — deliberately covering a few hundred servers well instead. The differentiation is automated grading across four independently scored dimensions, plus human review of the top tier, plus a published, measured false-positive rate, plus longitudinal grade history. None of the three above currently publishes that combination.

Read the methodology