mcp-api-proxy
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-api-proxy
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables clients to access multiple backend MCP servers through a single endpoint, with OAuth 2.1 authorization, namespaced tools, and secure credential management.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to authorize through a built-in OAuth 2.1 server and call tools over Streamable HTTP, including discovery, dynamic registration, PKCE, token rotation, and revocation.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes Enable Banking API tools for interacting with bank accounts through Open Banking. It enables users to authenticate sessions, list accounts, and fetch transaction history or balances via a secure self-hosted server.2-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to interact with a fictional bank through remote tools, including mock banking operations, OAuth 2.1 authentication, and a live X-ray dashboard for observing session activity.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables teams to onboard remote MCP servers, enforce function-level permissions and credential modes, and let developers expose permitted tools through a unified MCP endpoint with search and execute functions while auditing usage.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables users to aggregate, discover, and route remote MCP tools through a unified endpoint, with category-based access tokens, OAuth authorization, and admin management/analytics for self-hosted infrastructure.-
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose—executing a request against a Danske Bank API endpoint—is clear and unambiguous.
The single tool name, call_endpoint, follows a recognizable verb_noun convention and is readable. With only one tool there is no broader naming pattern to validate, so it cannot score a perfect 5 for set-level consistency.
A single generic proxy tool is a reasonable design for dynamically calling many API endpoints. However, one tool is thin for the apparent domain and forces agents to handle discovery, URL construction, and auth interpretation entirely through one long description.
The core execution operation is present and appears capable of covering many API calls. Notable gaps remain around API/spec discovery, tier listing, auth diagnostics, and PSD2 or non-premium flows, which agents must work around externally.