Model Context Protocol (MCP) has been proliferating at the speed of thought, as more and more developers and users strive to make their AI truly agentic and independent. Without MCP, AI-driven systems like large language models (LLMs) can only make suggestions. They can save you work, but they can also create work if you have to implement their suggestions by hand.

MCP‘s ability to let AI make actual changes has caused a massive surge in interest since it was released in November 2024. There were only around 100 servers when MCP first arrived. One MCP directory lists as many as 16,670 MCP servers as of September 2025. That’s a 16,000% increase** in less than two years!

This spike in interest is causing a digital gold rush to create and launch new MCP servers, and it only seems to be accelerating. We saw a similar rush around APIs a few years back, which created its own problems while simultaneously proving the power and usefulness of the technology. Of course, technology is only helpful if you can find it.

The surge in API popularity saw a corresponding explosion in the number of API directories available to the public. It started with ProgrammableWeb in 2005, which manually curated APIs until eventually shuttering in 2022. There were over 25,000 APIs listed when they closed. A plethora of other API directories popped up over the course of the 17 years ProgrammableWeb was in existence. APILayer, APIs.guru, APIsList, and the Postman API Network are all popular, prolific API directories, with hundreds of thousands of entries among them. This means that users looking for the perfect API might need to flick through several directories — less than ideal for both developers and users.

Luckily, MCP registries are being proactive, helping to limit some of the sprawl that ultimately derailed API directories by being more machine-readable by design. So far, there are numerous excellent MCP registries available that can help you find the perfect MCP for your project. Here are seven MCP directories you need to bookmark if you’re working with MCP or launching your own MCP server.

The Official MCP Registry

The official MCP Registry is the most fundamental point of access for MCP users. Maintained directly under the Model Context Protocol umbrella on GitHub, it was launched in preview form in late 2025 and is meant to serve as the canonical source for MCP server listings. The results aren’t necessarily ranked by popularity, but can be filtered using metadata. All MCP servers are verified by pinging every five seconds, so they’re guaranteed to be up-to-date and valid.

Due to its official status, the official registry carries the most weight and legitimacy within the MCP ecosystem. Server developers can publish their endpoints here, and clients or downstream registries can consume this information without scraping multiple sources. It also offers a moderation process, allowing the community to flag spammy or malicious entries. Subregistries can pull from it and apply their own filters or criteria.

That said, the project is still in preview, and the maintainers note that it should not yet be considered stable. There’s a possibility of breaking changes, data resets, or incomplete server coverage as the system matures. Nonetheless, developers building MCP clients or libraries that need reliable, authoritative metadata are best served by starting here, as it sets the standard for the rest of the ecosystem.

GitHub MCP Registry

GitHub’s own MCP server directory functions as a central listing of MCP server implementations and community contributions. It serves as a showcase for both official reference servers and community-driven projects. This makes GitHub’s MCP registry more expansive than the official one, as it’s an umbrella for everyone working with MCP, not just those endorsed by the MCP project itself. The results aren’t ranked by popularity, but visibility is influenced by GitHub-native signals like stars, forks, and repository activity.

Its close association with the MCP project gives it authority and makes it a first stop for developers looking for trustworthy implementations. It also provides transparency into project lifecycles, showing which servers are actively maintained.

That said, it lacks a ranking system based on adoption or usage. For those seeking insight into which servers are most widely used, the GitHub registry may feel more like a static showcase than a dynamic leaderboard. Nevertheless, for developers who want canonical code examples or vetted implementations, it remains one of the most useful entry points into the MCP ecosystem.

MCP.SO

The MCP.SO directory is a third-party aggregator of MCP servers designed around usage metrics. It offers a “Call Ranking” leaderboard that orders servers and clients based on call volume within specific timeframes. It also provides filters like “Featured,” “Latest,” “Official,” and “Hosted,” giving users multiple ways to explore its large collection.

By grounding rankings in call volume, MCP.SO provides a clear picture of which servers are being actively used. This makes it especially valuable for developers who want to identify popular servers quickly. The site also supports browsing by tags and categories.

Reliance on traffic metrics can bias results toward high-call servers, even if they aren’t the most reliable. As a result, MCP.SO is best used as a barometer of real-world adoption rather than a definitive guide to quality. Still, for users who want to see which servers are most active right now, it provides one of the clearest snapshots available.

Mastra MCP Registry Registry

The Mastra MCP Registry Registry takes a more meta approach to curating MCP servers. Instead of hosting servers, Mastra catalogs other registries. This “registry of registries” is useful for those who want to see across the ecosystem rather than be locked into one listing. By aggregating multiple sources, it reduces siloing and makes it easier to get a unified view.

Its value depends heavily on the completeness and freshness of the registries it indexes, however. If a registry isn’t included or updates infrequently, the meta view can lag or miss servers. It also introduces another layer of abstraction between users and raw metadata, which can result in inconsistencies or stale entries. It doesn’t really rank servers either, as it’s meant to be more of an aggregator than a ranked directory. Still, for toolmakers, analysts, or anyone wanting a bird’s-eye view across the registry landscape, Mastra provides a useful aggregation point.

OpenTools Registry

The OpenTools Registry is positioned as a discoverability layer for MCP servers tied to generative tools and APIs. Rather than trying to be exhaustive, it helps users find servers that provide specific capabilities like search, scraping, or integration with certain platforms. This task-centric framing makes it easier for developers with concrete needs. Another benefit is curation: by focusing on practical endpoints, OpenTools weeds out duplicates, abandoned projects, or trivial demos.

The trade-off is that its narrower focus may exclude lesser-known but valuable servers. Experimental or niche endpoints are more likely to be overlooked in favor of mainstream options. This makes OpenTools appealing to teams building domain-specific agents or applications, but less appealing to researchers seeking maximum breadth.

MCP-Get

MCP-Get emphasizes real-time discovery and insights. It surfaces up-to-date information about server status and activity, making it a mix of registry and monitoring service. This is valuable for teams that need to know which servers are actively maintained.

At the same time, this real-time emphasis adds complexity on the backend, and as the number of servers grows, latency and data freshness may become challenges. Unless MCP-Get maintains strong moderation and verification standards, it may also be susceptible to spam or entries that try to game visibility. Its comparative metrics are useful when honest but vulnerable if gamed. Still, for developers who care about operational reliability and want to keep a pulse on the health of the servers they depend on, MCP-Get offers functionality that the more static registries do not.

Glama MCP Server Registry

Glama’s MCP Servers Registry is notable for its scale. It lists nearly 10,000 production-ready MCP servers across categories ranging from databases to automation. Its polished interface allows filtering by claimed status, server type, or category. Glama takes an editorial stance, skipping duplicates, demos, or entries that don’t meet its quality bar. This makes browsing smoother, but obscure projects may be excluded.

Because Glama acts as such a large gatekeeper, there’s also a risk of centralization. If developers rely too heavily on it, the ecosystem could become dependent on its editorial decisions. Nevertheless, for those exploring the MCP landscape or seeking production-ready servers and want to explore the landscape, Glama provides unmatched breadth with a user-friendly interface.

Final Thoughts on MCP Registries

The number of MCP registries illustrates how varied the ecosystem is, from official GitHub listings to meta-aggregators, curated catalogs, monitoring platforms, and large-scale directories. The GitHub registry provides authority and a canonical source of truth. Mastra’s meta-registry is best for comparing across ecosystems. OpenTools helps match tasks with practical endpoints. MCP-Get surfaces real-time operational data. And Glama provides a deep breadth.

Although each is robust enough to stand alone, using these registries together allows developers to balance authority, perspective, task-specific discovery, operational insight, and large-scale coverage in a way no single catalog can deliver.