Skip to main content
Glama
Cyan Eclipse Cadence MCP

Cyan Eclipse Cadence MCP

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to Cyan Eclipse Cadence MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables bounded, evidence-backed inspection of BLA-protected artifacts such as JavaScript, ASAR, native binaries, WASM, SQLite, and models, with optional handoff of verified inspection views to REA.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Inspect captured API contract changes and SDK mappings, check local call sites, and read private evidence with explicit workspace approval. Repair tools use confirmed review sessions and separate GitHub draft delivery confirmation.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables compatible AI coding agents to inspect authorized software artifacts, analyze JavaScript/TypeScript and native binaries, optionally perform Ghidra decompilation, and produce verifiable evidence-linked technical reports.
      11
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Lets users inspect and verify content-addressed schema migration evidence offline, checking idempotence, reversible rollback, required invariants, and explicit lossy-field disclosure without executing migrations or accessing data.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables autonomous agents to inspect and audit unfamiliar x402 endpoints before spending USDC, using bounded read-only probes to surface payment challenges, pricing, network, receiver, and operational signals without signing or spending funds.
      -

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource+action pair (scripts list/read, renders list/read, voices list, receipts verify, render propose), and the descriptions explicitly cross-reference sibling tools to steer selection (e.g. renders_read vs receipts_verify, scripts_list vs scripts_read). No two tools can be plausibly confused for one another.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names follow a predictable cadence_<resource>_<verb> pattern with snake_case throughout. The only blemish is singular/plural drift on the same resource: cadence_render_propose versus cadence_renders_list and cadence_renders_read.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 band and each one maps to a concrete operation on a small local domain. Nothing feels padded or redundant for a read-only audit/proposal facade.

    Completeness3/5

    Scripts and renders both have list+read pairs and receipts have verification, but proposals only have a create path — there is no way to list or re-read a proposal after creation, and no receipt listing. The absence of synthesis/start/apply tools is explicitly declared as out of scope, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues