Skip to main content
Glama
Crackx17

dokutrak-mcp

by Crackx17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to dokutrak-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Formify MCP by formify-e-sign

      Formify MCPofficial

      formify-e-sign
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to create fillable PDFs, send contracts for e-signature, verify signers via BankID or ID scans, and track post-send document workflows.
      5
      MIT

    • docflow-mcp

      intsig-textin
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables LLM agents to classify documents, extract fields, tables, and stamps, and run compliance reviews using Docflow's document automation platform via 41 MCP tools.
      MIT
    • @docmake/mcp by docmake-io

      @docmake/mcpofficial

      docmake-io
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to generate DOCX and PDF documents from DocMake templates through natural language, including template listing, field inspection, document rendering, DOCX import, and usage tracking.
      6
      37 npm
      MIT
    • layerone-mcp by GOLayerone

      layerone-mcpofficial

      GOLayerone
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to generate documents (PDF/DOCX/Factur-X) and manage electronic signatures (eIDAS/PAdES) via natural language using LayerOne's DocX and Sign APIs.
      20
      30 npm
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool maps to a distinct action: create a new request, request replacement of rejected files, read request status, or download collected documents. The descriptions clearly state when not to use a tool, so there is little risk of selecting the wrong one.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent imperative verb_noun pattern: create_request, request_replacement, get_request, download_documents. The names clearly signal the action and object, and the pattern is maintained throughout the small set.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for the focused document-request workflow; each tool covers a necessary step: create, monitor, re-request, and download. There is no redundancy or overlap, so the small count feels deliberate rather than thin.

    Completeness3/5

    The core flow of requesting documents, checking status, re-requesting rejected files, and downloading is covered, but there is no general update or cancel/delete tool for a request. A Professional cannot adjust a deadline, change the document list, or withdraw a request through the MCP, which leaves a notable lifecycle gap.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources