rhizome-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to rhizome-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA lightweight, fully local MCP server that provides AI coding tools with a shared SQLite memory store and built-in conflict arbitration, enabling structured memory sharing across tools like ZCode, Codex, Cursor, and Claude Code without external dependencies.410Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local-first MCP server that lets coding agents record what they learn as provenance-carrying observations, retrieve and traverse that shared project memory, and keep contradictory claims side by side for human mediation. It enables opt-in peer sync of a workspace across machines, with every assertion keeping its source, basis, and computed trust tier.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLocal MCP server giving AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code/JetBrains Copilot) a shared, persistent memory of your projects and every bug/issue faced during development. Stateless, plain-file storage (AGENTS.md + issues.jsonl) — no database.1654 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA local MCP server that enables multiple AI coding tools to share structured project state (decisions, tasks, bugs) so they coordinate without re-explaining.5MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA fully local, privacy-first MCP server that gives AI coding assistants deep repository intelligence with file-and-line-cited answers, persistent semantic memory, and agentic abilities like task planning and code review—all without any cloud API calls.23-
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA local-first MCP server that provides AI agents with safe codebase access through file discovery, hybrid lexical-semantic search, and project introspection. It features durable local memory and semantic indexing while keeping all data and processing entirely on your local machine.7480 npm6MIT
TDQS
Scored across 35 tools
Several tools have overlapping purposes: create_review_request, replace_review_request, and supersede_review_request all handle review request creation/supersedure, with two marked deprecated. Also, get_planning_graph and get_work_context both provide context-heavy views, and the abundance of similar verbs (create/list/get/manage) creates boundary confusion despite useful descriptions.
Tool names overwhelmingly use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_issues, renew_attempt, archive_issue). The only notable deviation is the single-word 'search' and a few unconventional verb choices like 'open_project' and 'manage_issue_relation', which are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.
With 35 tools, the server is well above the 'too many (25+)' threshold. The count is inflated by deprecated tools (create_review_request, supersede_review_request) that could be removed, and the sheer number makes the tool surface unnecessarily heavy for agents to navigate.
The server covers a comprehensive domain: issue lifecycle, review requests, attempts/leases, decisions, relations, sessions, import/export, and planning graphs. Minor gaps like lacking a direct 'list_relations' tool are mitigated by get_issue_graph, but the presence of deprecated tools and some redundancies suggest the surface is not fully polished.