Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to tool-guardian

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A discovery and routing layer for MCP servers that loads tool definitions on demand, reducing token usage by keeping servers out of the context window until needed.
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A semantic router that provides unified access to multiple MCP servers through a single tool interface, using vector search to discover and execute tools across your entire MCP ecosystem while minimizing context token usage.
      30
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP proxy that reduces context usage through semantic tool routing, enabling on-demand discovery and routing of relevant tools.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Acts as a proxy for multiple MCP servers, reducing context window usage from 15,000+ tokens to ~500 tokens by dynamically loading servers on-demand and exposing only 3 tools instead of all tool definitions.
      5
      GPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A single MCP endpoint for AI agents to browse, inspect, and call tools from multiple upstream MCP servers without loading all schemas upfront, reducing context overhead.
      13 npm
      ISC
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides per-Subagent MCP controls to any coding agent or client across all your MCPs and prevents context window waste. Loads only 3 tools instead of all your MCP Server's tool definitions. Agents discover tools on-demand, only when needed and only the servers and tools they are allowed.
      4
      86 PyPI
      41
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool maps to a distinct step in the discovery-invoke pipeline: list vs search vs describe vs call vs retrieve are separable, and descriptions explicitly cross-reference ("to find a tool use list_capabilities"). The main friction is list_capabilities / search_capabilities / list_groups_with_costs, three read-only listing tools that are similar in spirit and could be briefly confused, though the descriptions steer correctly.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool is snake_case verb_noun: list_capabilities, search_capabilities, describe_tool, call_tool, list_groups_with_costs, retrieve_spill. Naming is predictable and immediately readable, with the object of each verb clearly identifiable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a gateway whose job is discover, inspect, invoke, and recover output. No tool feels redundant or padded, and each covers a real stage of the proxy workflow.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers discovery, argument inspection, invocation, and spill recovery — the core lifecycle for a tool-proxy server. Minor gaps exist around connection/session management (connecting or refreshing servers) and reading backend resources/prompts, but agents can work around these.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues