Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to fast-html-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables AI coding agents to read and write to a local-first HTML/CSS design canvas, bridging visual design and code generation.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local MCP server that lets AI agents publish markdown/HTML to a browser viewer with session management, revision diffs, and live updates via a single tool call.
      2
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that gives AI coding agents the ability to design UIs through Google Stitch. It generates production-ready HTML and screenshots from natural language prompts.
      9
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A self-extending MCP server that enables AI agents to browse the web, execute shell and Node snippets, automate browser workflows, access files and git, communicate with other agents, and use dozens of domain-specific calculation and research tools.
      -

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 19 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    There is some overlap between tools like patch_html and set_attribute (both modify elements via CSS selectors), and write_raw_html vs write_html_file both write HTML but with unclear distinction. However, most tools have clearly defined purposes targeting different aspects (sections, templates, components), so the ambiguity is limited.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_components, render_page, check_consistency). Verbs are clear and nouns align with the object acted upon, making the naming predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 19 tools, the set is on the heavy side (16-25). While each tool has a specific role, the number feels slightly excessive for HTML manipulation, especially given the overlapping edit/write tools that could potentially be consolidated.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers creation, reading, editing, rendering, and template/component management comprehensively. The main gap is the lack of delete/removal operations (e.g., delete_element or remove_section), but core workflows are well-supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues