mcp-llm-bridge
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-llm-bridge
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceOne local gateway for all your MCP servers — shared by every AI coding tool (Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex). Set up each server once; keys stay in the OS keychain; lazy discovery keeps agent context small. Local-first, open source.4130 npm211MIT

Bifrost MCP Gatewayofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceOpen-source MCP and LLM gateway that aggregates MCP tools behind a unified endpoint with governance, observability, and explicit execution controls.7,995Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes an OpenAI- and Anthropic-compatible HTTP, SSE, and stdio gateway that wraps multiple subscription CLIs, adding prompt-injection defense, PII redaction, cost-aware routing, and reasoning-trace capture for MCP-compatible clients like Claude Desktop and Cursor.4 npm11Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAn encrypted secret vault and MCP gateway that securely stores API keys and injects them into upstream MCP servers, so AI IDEs never see raw credentials.9-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceUnified local MCP AI Gateway that routes across Groq, OpenRouter, Mistral, and local Ollama providers, with OpenAI-compatible APIs, MCP tools, fallback/racing router, monitoring, and web dashboard.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local AI gateway that connects multiple AI providers (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity) to your development environment via MCP tools, enabling coding, search, analysis, and more without API keys.17 npm1,171-
TDQS
Scored across 30 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose due to domain-specific prefixes and action verbs. Overlaps like llm_generate and local_llm_generate are well-differentiated by descriptions indicating local vs. cloud routing.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix (e.g., vault_, conversation_) followed by a verb_noun combination. No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.
30 tools is on the higher side but each domain (approval, circuit breakers, code search, conversation, groups, LLM generation, shared state, usage, vault) has a reasonable number of tools. The count reflects the server's broad scope without excessive bloat.
Most domains have adequate CRUD coverage (e.g., vault store/list/delete, conversation pagination, usage query/summary). Minor gaps exist (no group update, no approval request creation), but core workflows are supported.