MCP registries compared: Glama, Smithery, PulseMCP, mcp.so

Four MCP registries in 2026: Glama (largest, tiered), Smithery (agent-first + hosting), PulseMCP (curated), mcp.so (broad). Where each fits, how to list your server, how to source servers, and questions about registry governance itself.

Four MCP registries dominate discovery in 2026: Glama, Smithery, PulseMCP, and mcp.so. This post compares them on the dimensions that matter for choosing where to list your server and where to source servers from — quality tiers, ownership signals, hosting, and governance-of-the-registry itself.

The four at a glance

Registry	Indexed servers	Quality tier system	Hosting offered	Ownership signal
Glama	~37,800	Yes (tiered, incl. AAA)	Yes (~6,000 hosted connectors)	Claim + verify
Smithery	~6,000+	Basic (verified badge)	Yes (one-click)	Publish step required
PulseMCP	~1,200+ curated	Yes (editorial curation)	No	Curator vetted
mcp.so	~10,000+	Basic	No	Directory listing

Glama

Glama is the largest by index (37,800 servers, ~6,000 hosted connectors, 1M+ tool calls/month across 50,000+ developers, per its own reporting in mid-2026). Its tiered quality signal is the most useful in the ecosystem: the top tier (AAA) is independently verified and covers only a small fraction of listed servers. Glama also splits its directory into "Official" (publisher-verified) and "Claimed" (author-verified) tiers, above the anonymous-crawl pool.

Where it fits: enterprise buyers looking for a quality signal that carries real vetting weight. Developers looking to publish and be discovered.

Smithery

Smithery grew from ~10 servers at launch to 6,000+ with tens of thousands of tool calls per day (self-reported). Its distinguishing move: one-click managed hosting and Toolbox, a meta-MCP that routes an agent to the right server at runtime. That collapses discovery and deployment into one workflow.

Where it fits: agent-first teams who want a single vendor for discovery + hosting + runtime routing. Publishers who want to reach the agent-tool market with minimum operational lift.

PulseMCP

PulseMCP is deliberately smaller (~1,200 curated servers), emphasizing quality over quantity. Editorial curation is a real filter — you don't get in without review.

Where it fits: teams that want a pre-vetted, "read before you use" MCP catalog. Publishers whose value proposition is quality over reach.

mcp.so

mcp.so is a directory in the classic sense — comprehensive, community-crawled, minimal quality tier. Good for full coverage; less useful as a trust signal.

Where it fits: exhaustive discovery. Not a filter you should rely on for enterprise procurement.

Choosing where to list your server

If you build MCP servers you want enterprise buyers to find:

Glama first. Claim your listing. Pursue the tier system to whichever level your operational maturity supports.
PulseMCP second. If your server is genuinely high-quality, editorial curation will surface it.
Smithery third. Publish if you want the hosted + Toolbox distribution.
mcp.so last. You will probably be indexed automatically; claim ownership.

Choosing where to source servers from

If you consume MCP servers for enterprise use:

Never source a production dependency from an anonymous crawl entry. Require at minimum a "Claimed" or "verified" tier.
Prefer Glama's AAA tier where available; the vetting is real.
For open-source servers, verify the upstream (GitHub source, maintainer identity) matches the registry entry.
Regardless of source, insert your enterprise MCP gateway between the client and any external server — the registry's vetting is not a substitute for your own policy.

Governance of the registry itself

Registries are not neutral. They have moderation policies, deletion policies, and (in some cases) commercial relationships with hosted publishers. Two questions to ask about any registry you rely on:

What is the takedown policy if a listed server is later found to be malicious?
What is the escalation path if my legitimate server is delisted or downgraded?

Glama and Smithery both publish some level of policy; PulseMCP's editorial model is the most explicit. Ask upfront rather than discover the answer during an incident.

The ThinkNEO MCP posture

ThinkNEO maintains 8 SMB MCP servers (68 tools) plus a main control-plane MCP server. All are listed with authoritative ownership on Glama and reach AAA where the vetting applies. Discovery is one thing; governance is another — every ThinkNEO MCP call, whether sourced from a registry or a direct URL, is enforced by the same gateway that governs the LLM plane.