Skip to main content
Glama
CosmGrid

Local MCP Dev Runner

by CosmGrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Local MCP Dev Runner

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to inspect local Git repositories and interact with the GitHub API for reading commits, diffs, files, issues, comments, pull requests, and project boards.
      10
      99 npm
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Connects AI assistants to GitHub repositories, pull requests, issues, commits, and code search while enabling repository visibility controls, CI/CD monitoring, sandboxed local filesystem access, and code quality/security analysis.
      13
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to inspect local and remote repositories through sandboxed tools that surface project overviews, structure, dependency audits, Git churn hotspots, and a heuristic health score. It also supports safe GitHub issue searching and creation with built-in duplicate preflight checks, while blocking sensitive files, binary content, and path traversal attacks.
      19 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to perform code reviews by providing access to staged files, git diffs, and repository file content. It allows users to evaluate changes and context within any local git repository before committing or pushing.
      3
      4 npm
      ISC
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to interact with local Git repositories for operations like status, commits, branching, and diffs, plus GitHub API integration for managing pull requests when authenticated.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 24 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: project listing vs project detail, single-file vs multi-file reads, name-based search vs content search, and Git operations are all cleanly separated. Even similar-sounding tools like git_create_branch and git_worktree_create are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All names are readable lowercase snake_case with useful domain prefixes, but conventions are mixed: list_projects is verb-first while project_info is noun-first, create_file is verb-first while github_repository_create is object-first, and git_branch_list places list at the end. The patterns are understandable but not consistent enough for a 4 or 5.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 24 tools, this sits in the heavy 16-25 band. The broad multi-domain scope justifies much of the surface area, but several tools could plausibly be consolidated, and the overall selection size is larger than the typical well-scoped MCP server.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle is well covered: project discovery, file exploration/reading, bounded file mutations, Git branch/worktree/commit workflows, and script execution all have sensible tooling. Minor gaps exist, such as no push/merge/rename operations, but these appear intentional given the sandboxed, runner-focused design.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues