Skip to main content
Glama
KozakHou

bourne mcp

by KozakHou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to bourne mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • LinkedRun

      ShiroganeKaichou
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to submit and manage persistent, dependency-aware task graphs with immutable artifacts, resource reservations, durable event streaming, and retryable process execution over MCP.
      12
      MIT

    • Ansys Research Runner MCP

      miziyo
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      10
      1
      MIT

    • heddle

      goweft
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables users to define and run MCP tools using declarative YAML configs with built-in trust enforcement, credential brokering, and tamper-evident audit logging.
      14
      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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 17 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    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.

    Tool Count3/5

    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.

    Completeness5/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources