Skip to main content
Glama
AIops-tools

io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

by AIops-tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to io.github.AIops-tools/ceph-aiops

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • truenas-aiops

      AIops-tools
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      AI-powered MCP server for TrueNAS SCALE storage operations with governance and safety features, enabling management of pools, datasets, snapshots, disks, alerts, and services.
      25
      MIT

    • observability-aiops

      AIops-tools
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Governed Prometheus + Grafana operations — firing-alert and scrape-target RCA, alert noise/flapping analysis, silences, and dashboards, with unbypassable audit logging (MCP + CLI), budget/runaway guards, dry-run, and undo/rollback.
      39
      MIT

    • Ceph MCP Server

      rajmohanram
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to interact with Ceph storage clusters through natural language, making storage management more accessible and intuitive.
      6
      MIT

    • cicd-aiops

      AIops-tools
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Governed CI/CD operations for self-hosted GitLab and Gitea — pipeline-failure, runner, artifact-bloat, and stale-branch RCA, with unbypassable audit logging (MCP + CLI), budget/runaway guards, dry-run, and undo/rollback.
      28
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 21 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct Ceph subsystem or resource: mon/mgr/cephfs/rgw status, OSD/PG/pool views, and pool/RBD operations. Even closely related pairs like pg_summary vs pg_dump_stuck and pool_ls vs pool_df are clearly separated by purpose. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Read tools consistently use noun_status or resource-short names like osd_tree, pg_summary, and pool_ls. Write tools mix verb-first naming such as set_pool_* and throttle_recovery with noun-first naming such as osd_purge and rbd_image_delete, but all names are lowercase snake_case and grouped by resource, so the pattern remains predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    21 tools is on the heavier side, but the Ceph domain spans monitors, managers, CephFS, RGW, OSDs, PGs, pools, and RBD images, so the breadth is justified. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feels redundant.

    Completeness2/5

    There are notable dead ends: rbd_image_delete references rbd_ls for image discovery but no rbd_ls tool exists, and osd_purge instructs draining an OSD first but no reweight/mark-out tool is provided. Pool create is supported without pool delete, and RBD snapshots only have delete. These gaps will force agents to guess or fail at multi-step workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources