Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-rport

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to query and manage a Qbee-managed device fleet, offering read tools for device status, files, CVEs, and changes, plus confirmation-gated write operations for configuration, file management, membership, and IAM.
      Apache 2.0
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables a Business MCP Hub to manage and interact with remote agent devices through typed MCP tools, including file operations, terminal/SSH execution, skills, and MCP server calls, with WebSocket relay and device registry.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables self-hosted remote access to a user-controlled device's approved filesystem roots, allowing clients to list directories, read and search files, inspect metadata, ping the agent, and list devices through an MCP tunnel.
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI/MCP clients to enumerate, select, and operate authorized remote computers through one OAuth-protected, self-hosted endpoint, with devices connecting outbound and keeping their own cryptographic identities. It layers OAuth scopes, account-to-device grants, server profiles, and device-local ceilings to govern filesystem, shell, process, transfer, Git, and signed agent lifecycle operations with auditable results.
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to list hosts, run commands, and orchestrate fleet automation over SSH, with per-host opt-in and approval-gated actions while keeping credentials secure.
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct target resource or action: clients, groups, tunnels, status, or command execution. The main overlap is between rport_create_tunnel and rport_ssh_exec, but their descriptions clearly differentiate tunnel-only creation from executing a command over an SSH tunnel.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names consistently use the rport_ prefix with verb_noun patterns like list_clients, get_client, create_tunnel, and delete_tunnel. Minor deviations are rport_whoami and rport_ssh_exec, but they are still clear and do not break the overall naming scheme.

    Tool Count5/5

    Ten tools is a well-scoped size for an RPort management server. Each tool covers a meaningful capability without unnecessary duplication or excessive granularity.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the core RPort workflows: checking status, listing and inspecting clients, viewing groups, managing tunnel lifecycle, and executing commands. Minor gaps exist, such as no group mutation or dedicated tunnel detail endpoint, but agents can accomplish the primary use cases without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues