altcheck
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GH_TOKEN | No | Alternative GitHub token environment variable, used if GITHUB_TOKEN is not available. | |
| GITHUB_TOKEN | No | GitHub 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
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| 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
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.