Skip to main content
Glama
Pajand

OpenCOOP MCP Server

by Pajand

Related Servers

Alternatives to OpenCOOP MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables multiple coding agents to collaborate in a shared workspace with roles, messaging, concurrent file editing, task graphs, and live awareness of each other.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables two developers using Claude Code to collaborate in real time on the same codebase, with file locking, guest write approvals, and secure session joining. It connects host and guest Claude Code sessions to a shared project with tools for file operations, locks, and notifications.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables multiple AI agents like Claude and Codex to coordinate on the same project through shared tasks, file locks, and a real-time dashboard, preventing conflicts and streamlining collaborative development.
      8 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables multi-agent and human collaboration through MCP with scoped rooms, invites, @mentions, task claims, file locks, and push delivery to Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor. Provides cross-company safety, human review, and MCP/A2A protocols for coordinated agent work.
      22 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables separate Claude Code sessions across a team to see teammates' live presence, warn before editing a file someone else is editing, route shared-contract changes to the developers whose code depends on them, and produce structured handoffs when a session ends.
      201 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables multiple AI agents using MCP-compatible clients to collaborate in parallel on the same project across one or more machines, with direct messaging, a shared task board, atomic file/folder locking, presence tracking, and a live web dashboard.
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 17 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., read vs. write vs. edit, search_files by name vs. grep_content by content). The only potential confusion is between list_files and directory_tree, but their descriptions clarify the difference.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_members, lock_file, invite_member). The main deviations are directory_tree and who_is_online, which break the pattern slightly but are still readable and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    17 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a collaborative file-sharing server covering file operations, locking, member management, and activity views. No tool feels redundant or excessive.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers file read/write/edit/list/search, locking, member management, and activity well. However, there is no delete_file tool, and member permissions cannot be updated, which are notable gaps for a full collaboration lifecycle.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues