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.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A standalone stdio MCP server that exposes 13 resources, 3 prompts and 7 tools for assembling interactive, replayable HTML interfaces such as calculators, charts, maps, flowcharts and small apps. It returns the generated HTML document for the calling client to decide whether and how to display.
      68 npm
      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
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to perform deterministic search synthesis and compile Sparkpage layouts into comparison matrices and ready-to-render HTML interfaces through a zero-dependency Python MCP server. Plugs into Claude Desktop, Cursor, and other MCP clients for structured, low-latency output with execution telemetry.
      7
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables autonomous web agents to prune raw HTML into accessibility-friendly semantic trees with 80%+ token reduction, auto-map form input schemas, convert HTML/Markdown tables into type-inferred JSON records, and score agent execution trajectories. Runs as a zero-dependency, stdlib-only MCP stdio server for Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf.
      7
      MIT

    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