bourne mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to bourne mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents to submit and manage persistent, dependency-aware task graphs with immutable artifacts, resource reservations, durable event streaming, and retryable process execution over MCP.12MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to run declarative agents and DAG workflows as plain tools, with parallel nodes, review loops, and per-run least-privilege sandboxing.6 npmMIT

Patronus MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables running LLM evaluations, experiments, and custom evaluators through a standardized MCP interface.16Apache 2.0- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to control the local Open Science research application, including creating projects, starting or continuing research sessions, inspecting progress and plans, canceling runs, and reading generated artifacts.12Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceEnables users to run bounded, evidence-producing Ansys research workflows on qualified local products through STDIO, using fixed MCP tools and reviewed tutorial IDs with job tracking, provenance, and artifact retrieval.101MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to run reproducible bioinformatics pipelines over MCP, with verifiable provenance via checksums and Workflow Run RO-Crate metadata.62MIT
TDQS
Scored across 17 tools
Most tools have clearly separated lifecycle roles: schema/validate/plan/execute/get/wait/cancel/trace are distinct. A few phrases overlap, notably bourne_plan versus bourne_site_candidates/bourne_site_select and bourne_discover versus bourne_site_discover, but the descriptions actively explain when to use each.
Every tool is prefixed with bourne, but the underlying pattern is inconsistent: validate_request and execute_plan are verb+object, site_list and execution_get are object+verb, while discover, inventory, and request_schema are bare or noun-only. Names remain readable, but the convention is not uniform.
17 tools is just above the ideal range and feels somewhat heavy for a single server. The planning workflow is split across plan, site_candidates, and site_select, which inflates the tool count even though the overall domain is coherent.
The tool set covers the stated execution lifecycle well: schema validation, request normalization, discovery, inventory, site policy, candidate planning, selection, immutable plan creation, execution, monitoring, wait, cancellation, reconciliation, and artifact tracing. No obvious operation needed by the domain seems missing.