Skip to main content
Glama
Nieto-Tech

crew-mcp

by Nieto-Tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to crew-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Gauntlet

      Raffymimii
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code to submit code, diffs, plans, and security or edge-case questions to Codex, Gemini, and GPT-OSS for read-only review, verifying each quoted line against the real files so fabricated findings are filtered before Claude reads them. It also runs multi-family councils that surface agreement, falls back across models when quotas run out, and supports optional hooks that block git push until edits have been reviewed.
      10
      1
      MIT

    • codex-subagent-mcp

      parisbs
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code to delegate coding tasks—investigation, review, long-running background jobs, and optional file edits—to a locally installed OpenAI Codex CLI, with the model and reasoning effort chosen per task and read-only execution by default. Follow-up requests reuse Codex's existing context, and write-enabled delegations can be confined to a managed git worktree so the user's own checkout stays untouched.
      8
      211 npm
      MIT

    • localagents

      ccebelenski
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code to delegate agent tasks to local LLMs via llama.cpp or vLLM servers on your own hardware, reducing API usage while maintaining full agent capabilities.
      11
      12
      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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target clearly distinct actions: status/config, stats/metrics, citation-checking, code recon, second-opinion critique, and diff review. The main overlap is between crew_second_opinion and crew_review_diff, since both critique a diff, though descriptions separate a general design/plan critique from a bug/security-focused diff review.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the crew_ prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_citations, review_diff, second_opinion). A few are bare nouns (stats, status, recon), which is a minor deviation but still readable and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a crew/delegation server. Each tool earns its place across setup, observability, exploration, verification, and review, with no redundancy padding the count.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full review workflow: status, stats, recon, second opinion, citation verification, and diff review, giving no obvious dead ends. Configuration is read-only (status) with no way to set up crew/workspace, a minor gap users can work around.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources