said-done
Related Servers
Alternatives to said-done
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to execute real-world API actions with exactly-once reliability, deduplication, auditing, and human-in-the-loop safeguards via MCP.3-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAI-driven task management application that operates via MCP, enabling autonomous creation, organization, and execution of tasks with support for subtasks, priorities, and progress tracking.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides a provider-agnostic MCP server that owns task claims, action logs, role handoffs, and health-gate results so AI coding agents can move work through use-case, spec, design, build, and review stages with server-enforced evidence. It also exposes read-only skills for drafting use cases and specs, triaging bugs, answering code questions, and auditing itself.29 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to access connected services and accounts through one MCP/REST interface, run scheduled or event-triggered plain-English jobs, and securely manage notifications, approvals, credentials, and model routing.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for agentic task orchestration and management, enabling AI agents to create goals, plan tasks with acceptance criteria, track dependencies, request human input, and provide proof of completion.22 npm3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceGives AI coding providers a shared, provider-agnostic workflow for authoring use cases and specs, claiming and tracking tasks across lead, explorer, consultant, builder, and reviewer roles, recording handoffs, and gating completion on native health scripts. It owns task claims, action logs, handoffs, and final health results over MCP, so teams can move from a request to verified work while specifications stay as Markdown files on the filesystem.29 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 31 tools
The tools form recognizable clusters (credentials, classifier/screening, sources/executors, tasks, audit), but generic names like `status`, `process_now`, and `task_result` overlap with more specific status/result tools. Many blank descriptions make the intended boundaries harder to confirm.
Most names are snake_case, but the verb convention is inconsistent: `list_tasks` and `configure_sources` sit alongside noun-first names like `setup_status`, `credential_status`, `source_status`, and `task_result`. It remains readable, but the pattern is mixed rather than predictable.
At 31 tools, the server is heavy even for a broad setup/orchestration domain, with separate setup, credential, screening, source, executor, task, and audit surfaces. This exceeds the rubric's 25+ threshold for excessive tool count.
Core workflows appear covered: setup/credentials, transcript submission/processing, classifier and screening configuration, sources, executors, task claiming/completion, and audit. However, there is no obvious transcript listing/retrieval or task-detail operation, and source/executor lifecycle seems limited to list/configure/test/status, so some paths may dead-end.