Skip to main content
Glama
Nedak23

User Steps MCP Server

by Nedak23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to User Steps MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • turn-mcp-web

      shiaho777
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables human-in-the-loop checkpoints for AI agents, allowing them to pause and wait for human input via a web UI, then seamlessly resume execution.
      28
      MIT

    • AskMeMCP

      thlandgraf
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to request human input through a web interface, allowing them to pause execution and wait for responses via interactive tools like single questions, multiple choice selections, hypothesis challenges, and decision workflows.
      4 npm
      2
      MIT

    • Subconductor

      PaulBenchea
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A persistent state machine and notification system for AI agents to manage complex, multi-step workflows via the Model Context Protocol, preventing context drift by maintaining structured checklists and sending desktop alerts.
      14
      4 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0
    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

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as presenting checklists for manual user actions, which is distinct and self-contained.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'user_steps' follows a consistent snake_case pattern, and since there are no other tools to compare against, it inherently maintains consistency. No naming conflicts or mixed conventions exist.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server's purpose, as it limits functionality and suggests an incomplete or overly narrow scope. While the tool is well-defined, a server typically benefits from multiple tools to cover related operations, making this count borderline inadequate.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool covers its specific domain of user interaction checklists well, including various step types like action and verification. However, as a standalone tool, it lacks broader coverage for a server that might imply more comprehensive user step management, such as creating, editing, or tracking steps over time.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources