Skip to main content
Glama
MOON-DREAM-STARS

link2kaggle-colab-mcp

by MOON-DREAM-STARS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to link2kaggle-colab-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • gpu-router

      ayushg8
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents and their users to submit, route, and monitor training jobs across free-tier GPU clouds (Kaggle, Colab, Lightning, local MPS) through a local daemon that tracks quota, explains routing decisions, and gates long or secret-reading agent jobs behind human approval.
      8
      MIT

    • mcp-server-colab-exec

      pdwi2020
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that allocates Google Colab GPU runtimes (T4/L4) and executes Python code on them. Lets any MCP-compatible AI assistant run GPU-accelerated code without local GPU hardware.
      3
      9
      MIT

    • colab-mcp

      404F0X
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Local-first MCP server for controlling Google Colab as a development, shell, file, and training runtime, with tools for notebook editing, GPU acceleration, and file transfer.
      59
      8
      Apache 2.0

    • Google Colab MCP Server

      MOT1209
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Lets any MCP-compatible agent use Google Colab or Jupyter runtimes as an execution backend, enabling code execution, notebook management, package installation, hardware introspection, training jobs, and file handling.
      40
      1
      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

    C2.6/5.0

    Scored across 30 tools

    Disambiguation1/5

    Every tool has an exact duplicate under a different prefix (gpu_ vs l2kc_), with identical descriptions. An agent cannot determine which of the two identical-looking tools to call, making the set highly ambiguous despite unique underlying functions.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Within each prefix, tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_providers, submit_job, get_job_status). However, maintaining two parallel prefixes for identical functionality creates an inconsistent naming scheme that is readable but confusing.

    Tool Count2/5

    30 tools is too many for the apparent scope, especially since half are duplicates. There are only about 15 unique operations, so the effective surface is reasonable but inflated to 30 by aliases.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers provider/account/auth/quota listing, resource listing, job submission, status, logs, artifacts, cancellation, listing, reconciliation, backend recommendation, and doctor checks. Minor gaps like direct job deletion or detail retrieval may exist, but core lifecycle operations are present.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources