weeek-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to weeek-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceWEEEK MCP server that allows creating, reading, updating, moving, and completing tasks using names instead of IDs for projects, columns, and assignees.1244 npm2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceFull-featured MCP server integrating all 71 endpoints of the Weeek API as MCP tools for AI clients, enabling task, project, and workspace management via natural language.3-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceRead-only MCP server for the Weeek Public API. Use it from Cursor or Claude Code to browse projects, search tasks, read attachments, and (with a browser session) load task comments.35 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for interacting with Kaiten project management through its REST API. Enables managing spaces, boards, cards, comments, checklists, tags, and time logs.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLocal, read-only-by-default MCP server for Weeek that connects AI clients to your workspace over stdio, enabling listing projects, tasks, boards, members, and tags with opt-in write tools for task management.1035 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceEnables task management on Weeek via the public REST API and knowledge base browsing as MCP resources with full document content.35124 PyPI1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 154 tools
Many tools have overlapping purposes differentiated only by numeric suffixes (e.g., weeek_attach_a_tag, _2, _3), lacking clear target indication in names. Additionally, similar operations exist for different entities (deals, organizations, contacts) without disambiguation in the tool name, forcing reliance on descriptions.
Naming follows a general weeek_verb_... pattern but is inconsistent: sometimes uses articles (weeek_get_a_contact) and sometimes not (weeek_get_tasks), and suffixes like _2, _3 are arbitrary. Some tools like weeek_tag and weeek_tag_list break the pattern. Overall, no consistent naming strategy across the set.
154 tools is far too many for a single server. While the domain is broad (task management, CRM, etc.), the granularity is excessive; many operations could be combined via parameters. This extreme count overwhelms agents without clear benefit.
The server provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle operations for most entities (tasks, projects, contacts, deals, organizations, funnels, custom fields, etc.), including additional actions like move, attach, and archive. Minor gaps include lack of search endpoints and some missing list operations, but the core domain is well-covered.