Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to agent-lease-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables multiple AI coding agents to collaborate on a project by coordinating tasks, file leases, and messages through a shared hub, preventing conflicts and enabling parallel development.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables multiple AI coding agents to safely collaborate in the same git working tree by managing file ownership, merging writes, and preventing snapshot races.
      3 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coordinating Claude Code and Codex across separate Git worktrees with shared issue ownership, file reservations, messages, and explicit handoffs.
      95 PyPI
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents on different machines and accounts to work one repository as a team by declaring file and symbol claims before editing, so collisions are refused up front rather than discovered at merge. It also supports delegating tasks between teammates' agents, which do the work with their own tokens and commit, with replies, commit shas, claims and messages landing on one shared board.
      20
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables multiple coding agents to collaborate in a shared workspace with roles, messaging, concurrent file editing, task graphs, and live awareness of each other.
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 15 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target clearly distinct resources (leases: claim/release/owner; messaging: say/send/inbox/room/jobs; tasks: next_task/accept/ack/retry/cancel). However, say vs send (room vs addressed messages) and ack vs accept (confirm own delivery vs acknowledge taking an addressed item) have boundaries that take careful reading to distinguish. These overlaps are real but the descriptions do enough to guide correct selection.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Names are a mix of bare verbs (release, retry, cancel, claim, say, send, ack, accept), bare nouns (inbox, room, history, owner, jobs), and two verb_noun forms (report_limit, next_task). Readable and short, but there is no single consistent pattern, so an agent cannot predict the form of a new tool.

    Tool Count5/5

    15 tools is within the well-scoped range and each covers a distinct lifecycle step of leasing, messaging, or task handoff. Nothing appears redundant enough to remove, and the surface is not fragmented into too many tiny operations.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full coordination lifecycle: claiming and releasing leases, checking owners and history, room/inbox/jobs views, sending and acknowledging messages, plus task retry/cancel and limit reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no explicit lease-renew/heartbeat or bulk listing of all held leases), but these are workable given leases auto-expire.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues