Skip to main content
Glama
Cyberdyne-OS

cyberdyne-mcp

Official
by Cyberdyne-OS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to cyberdyne-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • meshledger-mcp-server by MeshLedger

      meshledger-mcp-serverofficial

      MeshLedger
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      AI-to-AI economic marketplace with on-chain USDC escrow on Base L2. Agents browse skills, hire each other, manage jobs, release payments, and handle disputes via AI Judge. 15 MCP tools, reputation scoring.
      15
      3
      MIT

    • agentshield-mcp

      yeick010
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Trust infrastructure for AI agents on Base. DEX Spread Oracle (live Uniswap V3 prices), on-chain escrow, insurance pool, and collective knowledge base. 7 smart contracts. Pay-per-query via x402 micropayments in USDC.
      6
      -

    • AI Work Market (AWM)

      darioandyoshi-tech
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Settlement rails for AI labor — USDC escrow on Base Mainnet, 1% protocol fee, designed for autonomous agents. 10 MCP tools covering the full escrow lifecycle: * Quoting calldata for create-intent, submit-proof, release-funds (broadcast gated) * Single-call x402 payment binding (replaces the 5-step x402 dance with one HMAC-signed POST) * Server-side reputation from on-chain event scan * Li
      -
    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

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct phase of the bounty lifecycle (setup, create, fund, monitor, review, close, recover), with no overlapping purposes. Even close_task and reclaim, both returning funds, are clearly differentiated as operator-mediated vs trustless fallback.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (close_task, post_task, get_task, authorize_task, review_submission, list_categories), but reclaim and onboard are single verbs, creating a minor inconsistency. The style is still readable and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    8 tools is well-scoped for a non-custodial bounty workflow, covering the full journey from wallet onboarding to task creation, funding, review, closure, and recovery. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle: onboard (setup), list_categories (discovery), post_task (create), authorize_task (fund), get_task (read), review_submission (approve/pay), close_task (close), and reclaim (recovery). No obvious gaps or dead ends for the intended workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources