Skip to main content
Glama
InfraMCP

Foreman MCP Server

by InfraMCP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Foreman MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • foreman-mcp-py

      adamruzicka
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server to interact with Foreman (Red Hat Satellite) instances, enabling management of hosts, provisioning, and configuration via natural language.
      1
      -

    • Foreman MCP Server

      ofedoren
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables interaction with Foreman infrastructure management platform through MCP tools, prompts, and resources. Supports querying host information, security updates, and accessing Foreman data via natural language.
      4
      GPL 3.0

    • mcp-proxmox

      antonio-mello-ai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for managing Proxmox VE clusters — provision VMs and containers, manage snapshots and backups, execute commands, browse storage, and monitor resources through natural language
      37
      416 PyPI
      16
      MIT
    • Foreman MCP Server by theforeman

      Foreman MCP Serverofficial

      theforeman
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables interaction with Foreman instances to manage systems through the Model Context Protocol. It provides access to Foreman resources and tools, such as security update reports, directly within AI-powered environments like VSCode and Claude Desktop.
      5
      11
      GPL 3.0
    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

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 29 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (get vs list vs search with specific filters), with no overlapping purposes. For example, get_host vs get_host_status provide different aspects of the same entity, and list_hosts vs search_hosts_by_* use different filtering mechanisms.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_* for singular resources, list_* for plural collections, and search_hosts_by_* for filtered host queries. No mixing of conventions such as camelCase or inconsistent verb choices.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 29 tools, the count is slightly higher than the typical 3-15 range, but it is well-justified for a domain (Foreman infrastructure management) that involves many distinct resource types (architectures, content views, hosts, etc.). Each tool addresses a specific entity, making the set reasonably scoped.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is strictly read-only (only get and list operations) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. This leaves obvious gaps in lifecycle management for all entities (e.g., no ability to create or modify hosts, repositories, or content views), which will hinder agents needing full CRUD coverage.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources