A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceAn MCP server that exposes Makefile targets as callable tools for AI assistants, allowing Claude and similar models to execute Make commands with provided arguments.
MIT
rhoso-accel-mcp
by MiguelCarpio
Related Servers
Alternatives to rhoso-accel-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for AI DevTool workflow, exposing tools and resources for code review, repository chat, and repository operations.1-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceExposes Makefile targets as MCP tools, allowing AI agents to execute project automation tasks like build, test, and deploy through natural language.121MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA local MCP server exposing the OpenAI platform REST API as tools for file management, fine-tuning, inference, images, audio, batch processing, and organization usage/costs.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLocal MCP server that exposes fixed tools for GPT, Claude, and Gemini while routing to any OpenAI-compatible chat completions backend with independent configuration per target.1-
sceptre-mcp-serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that exposes Sceptre CloudFormation management operations as tools for AI agents.Apache 2.0
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 16 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool maps to a distinct deployment stage or resource: config inspection/validation, SNO provisioning, LVM, GitOps/ArgoCD, OpenStack operators, and secrets backends. Even closely related tools like install_gitops_operator, enable_argocd, and configure_openshift_gitops have clear boundaries through their descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names consistently follow a devtools_<verb>_<target> snake_case pattern, but there are minor deviations: operator installation uses both 'install' and 'deploy' (install_lvm_operator vs deploy_openstack_operator), and enable_argocd is slightly different in style. Overall the set is still predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
At 16 tools, the set is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range but each tool corresponds to a discrete deployment step in a multi-stage RHOSO provisioning workflow. The count feels justified rather than bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core deployment lifecycle well: config validation, SNO provisioning, storage, GitOps, OpenStack operators, and secrets backends. Notable gaps include no teardown/rollback tools and no final deployment status verification beyond kubeconfig display, but agents can complete the primary workflow.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues