A
licenseA
qualityNot graded
maintenanceMCP server for Pterodactyl and Pelican game server panels. 73 tools for server management, power control, file operations, backups, schedules, databases, users, nodes, and eggs.
34
14 npm
-
PterodactylMCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to PterodactylMCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to drive a Pterodactyl game panel over both its client and application API trees, covering servers, files, backups, schedules, databases, subusers, nodes, nests, and an eight-tool wings websocket console suite. Exposes 105 typed tools with a default-deny gate that blocks deletes, reinstalls, suspensions, and kill actions until explicitly allowlisted.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for managing Laravel Forge servers, sites, and deployments via the Forge API.1278 npm9MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that wraps CubeCoders AMP to list, inspect, and control game-server instances.85MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables administering one or many Pterodactyl panels from MCP-compatible clients through a configurable gateway, including server lifecycle control, console commands, file and backup management, and broad Client, Application, and Admin API requests.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides access to the DataPacket GraphQL API, enabling LLMs and MCP clients to manage dedicated servers, view invoices, provision new servers, handle support requests, and more.333 npm1MIT
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Scored across 50 tools
Disambiguation3/5
Tool names are very explicit but often long and repetitive (e.g., ptero_app_delete_nodes_node_allocations_allocation). The split between ptero_ai_ and ptero_app_ prefixes creates ambiguity, as both serve similar resources (e.g., list/search servers). Overall, an agent could distinguish them but with effort.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a pattern (prefix + method + resource), but the two prefixes (ptero_ai_ vs ptero_app_) break consistency. The app tools use underscores to represent API paths, leading to very long names, while AI tools are shorter. Mixed conventions reduce predictability.
Tool Count3/5
50 tools is high but reasonable for a comprehensive API wrapper. However, the presence of a generic request tool suggests the set is not fully scoped, and some tools duplicate functionality (e.g., multiple server list/search tools). A slightly leaner set would be better.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover CRUD for most resources (locations, nodes, servers, users) and operations like suspend/unsuspend. However, nests/eggs only have GET tools, missing POST/PATCH/DELETE. The inclusion of a generic request tool indicates gaps, making the surface incomplete.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues