Skip to main content
Tgtoolglade.
Side-by-side
Browse all comparisons →

mcp.run vs Glama

mcp.runGlama

Bottom line: mcp.run for developers building on MCP; Glama for developers evaluating MCP servers.

mcp.runmcp.run

Platform to discover, install, and run MCP servers and tools

Visit
GlamaGlama

MCP server registry, in-browser inspector, and gateway with an LLM API bundled in.

Visit
Votes00
PricingFreemiumFreemium
CategoryMcpMcp
Tags
mcpmodel-context-protocolai-toolswebassemblyagent-tools
mcpregistrygatewayllm-apiinspector
Best for
  • Developers building on MCP
  • Teams distributing internal tools to agents
  • Security-conscious agent builders
  • Developers evaluating MCP servers
  • Teams wanting gateway governance
  • Open-source server authors seeking free hosting
Pros
  • Curated registry of MCP servers/servlets
  • Portable, sandboxed Wasm execution model
  • Dynamic reprogrammable MCP server for on-demand tools
  • Built by Dylibso, a WebAssembly specialist
  • Works across MCP clients like Claude and Cursor
  • Very large indexed server catalog
  • In-browser MCP Inspector for safe testing
  • Gateway adds logging, access control, and managed OAuth
  • Bundled unified LLM API across major providers
  • Free hosting for open-source servers
Cons
  • Value depends on MCP ecosystem adoption
  • Wasm servlet model is a newer paradigm to learn
  • Registry breadth still maturing versus large directories
  • Primarily developer-focused
  • Enterprise features and pricing less publicized
  • Self-reported scale is hard to independently verify
  • Per-server-instance pricing may surprise some users
  • Hosted-only platform, no self-hosting of Glama itself
  • Crowded, fast-changing registry landscape
  • Third-party server trust remains the user's responsibility

Comparison generated from each tool's listing. Add or remove tools above to change it.