Skip to main content
Glama
FutureAtoms

Agentic Control Framework (ACF)

by FutureAtoms
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Agentic Control Framework (ACF)

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • agentforge

      Soulcynics404
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides 300+ MCP tools for orchestrating AI agents — including swarm coordination, self-learning memory, and task management — enabling MCP clients like Claude Code and Cursor to spawn, coordinate, and learn from specialist agents across sessions.
      18,049 npm
      1
      MIT

    • cortex

      mrinmoyece
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP-native agentic platform orchestrating planner/executor/critic agents over hybrid RAG with three-tier memory, budget enforcement, safety guardrails, and full observability. It exposes all capabilities as MCP tools, enabling natural-language control of document ingestion, retrieval-augmented generation, and multi-step AI workflows.
      MIT

    • BirdEye

      zanni098
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first mission control for AI agent harnesses, providing a unified MCP gateway for shared memory, task queue, and encrypted secrets across multiple agents.
      3 npm
      1
      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

    D1.8/5.0

    Scored across 69 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Tools are generally distinct in purpose but there is overlap between similar task priority tools (bump, defer, prioritize, deprioritize) and execution tools (execute_command vs applescript_execute). The numerous browser tools are well-distinguished by action.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (browser_navigate, read_file), others use camelCase (addTask, getContext), and a few are inconsistent (parsePrd, updateTask). This lack of pattern reduces predictability.

    Tool Count2/5

    69 tools is too many for a single MCP server, resulting in an overly broad surface. While the framework covers many domains (browser, file system, tasks, processes), the count suggests inadequate modularization.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers CRUD for files and tasks, comprehensive browser interactions, process management, and configuration. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no browser scroll), but overall it's thorough for the intended scope.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources