Skip to main content
Glama
altcheck

altcheck

Server Configuration

Describes the environment variables required to run the server.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
GH_TOKENNoAlternative GitHub token environment variable, used if GITHUB_TOKEN is not available.
GITHUB_TOKENNoGitHub token used for authentication; raises the rate limit to 5,000 requests an hour (about 10 candidates checked by default).

Instructions

Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.

This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.

Capabilities

Features and capabilities supported by this server

Protocol revision2025-11-25

CapabilityDetails
tools
{}

Tools

Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions

NameDescription
find_alternativesA

Find open-source alternatives to a proprietary tool or SaaS (e.g. "notion", "intercom") and vet each one live from GitHub: VIABLE / RISKY / AVOID with reasons (abandoned, archived, bus factor, source-available license, recent relicensing, young & unproven).

vet_repoA

Vet a single GitHub repo (owner/name) before adopting it: VIABLE / RISKY / AVOID with reasons.

Prompts

Interactive templates invoked by user choice

NameDescription

No prompts

Resources

Contextual data attached and managed by the client

NameDescription

No resources

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation4/5

find_alternatives takes a product/SaaS name and returns a vetted list, while vet_repo takes an owner/name slug and returns a single verdict, so the input shapes clearly separate them. There is mild conceptual overlap since find_alternatives embeds repo vetting, and an agent holding a known repo URL might hesitate between the two.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (find_alternatives, vet_repo). The verbs are distinct and accurately describe the action, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is thin for a server, though the scope (find alternatives, vet a repo) is genuinely narrow so nothing is padded. It sits at the borderline where a third operation like compare or get_repo_details would round out the surface.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow—discover alternatives and vet a specific candidate—is fully covered, including the key risk signals (abandonment, license, bus factor). Minor gaps exist: no side-by-side comparison of multiple alternatives or retrieval of raw repo metadata beyond the verdict.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo recent community issues