Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to AetherEdge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to discover, browse, read, search, and safely write OPC UA industrial device data within controlled edge networks, with guarded two-phase writes and evidence-based root-cause diagnostics.
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with safe, governed read access to industrial control systems (OPC-UA, Modbus, S7, Mitsubishi, MTConnect, MQTT/Sparkplug) plus cross-protocol diagnostics for troubleshooting data breaks, alarm floods, and unhealthy tags.
      155
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables LLM agents to inspect multi-modal IoT telemetry and query safety policies, then dispatch actuator commands through typed MCP tools that enforce deterministic safety interlocks and record a tamper-evident SHA-256 chained audit trail. This lets automated agents control building hardware without violating safety invariants, while rejecting cross-sensor false alarms and cutting redundant telemetry and token usage.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      The first and only MCP server for PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) intelligence. Give any AI agent direct access to industrial automation data — ladder logic, tag databases, cross-references, fault root cause analysis, and sequence blockers
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to interact with inSCADA systems via the Model Context Protocol, providing 39 tools for live data, alarms, scripts, historical analysis, charts, and more.
      39
      16 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 16 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are clearly separated by resource and granularity: alarms vs. rules, list vs. get, and channel-level vs. point-level mappings. The only mild risk is between channels_mappings, channels_points_mapping, and channels_unmapped_points, but their descriptions clarify the difference.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming generally follows a resource-first snake_case pattern with list/get/stats/status suffixes, which is predictable. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as history_latest not using a verb and alarm rules using alarms_rules vs. business rules using rules.

    Tool Count4/5

    At 16 tools, the set is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable given the broad domain covering alarms, channels, rules, history, models, routing, and templates. Each tool has a distinct place in the overall surface.

    Completeness2/5

    The entire tool surface is read-only: there are no create, update, delete, acknowledge, map, or route configuration operations. This creates significant dead ends, such as listing unmapped points with no way to map them, or viewing alarm rules with no way to modify them.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive