Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to etabs-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that bridges AI agents to Autodesk Revit, enabling local tool-based interaction with Revit models, including query, create, and modify operations, with an optional personal tool baking system.
      82
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to directly control CSI ETABS for structural and seismic analysis, including model inspection, material/section definition, frame generation, solver execution, and result extraction through natural language.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local, offline MCP server that enables AI agents to collaborate with SketchUp for controlled modeling, editing, and review tasks via 41 MCP tools.
      8
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for Autodesk Revit (BIM) with 705+ API endpoints. Enables AI agents to create walls, place doors/windows, generate sheets, manage views, and produce construction documents via the Model Context Protocol. Uses named pipes for zero-crash Revit integration.
      22
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Connects AI assistants to CSI ETABS for structural engineering tasks, enabling model creation, analysis, design, and seismic checks via the COM API.
      69
      9
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to interact with Bentley STAAD.Pro models for tasks like load case definition, data extraction, and property setting, running locally with multi-instance support and no cloud dependency.
      5
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 71 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The tool set spans modeling, analysis, design, results, UI automation, and raw API access, and several names are close enough to invite confusion (e.g. get_results vs get_table, get_design_summary vs get_concrete_design, status vs analysis_status vs model_overview). Descriptions generally clarify intent, but with 71 tools the boundaries are not crisp enough to eliminate occasional misselection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names share the etabs_ prefix and nearly all follow snake_case verb_noun or noun_phrase patterns (define_*, get_*, list_*, assign_*, run_*). A few tools are bare nouns such as status, menu, dialogs, screenshot, and checkpoint, which is a minor deviation from a strict verb_noun convention.

    Tool Count1/5

    71 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range and exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch, creating a very large selection surface for an agent. Although the ETABS domain is broad and many tools cover distinct operations, the count is still excessive for reliable tool choice.

    Completeness5/5

    The surface covers the full lifecycle: modeling, loads, analysis, design, results, reporting, checkpoints, UI automation, and a raw API escape hatch for anything not curated. No obvious dead ends remain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues