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
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for managing Laravel Forge servers, sites, and deployments via the Forge API.12774 npm8MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that wraps CubeCoders AMP to list, inspect, and control game-server instances.84MIT
- 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.335 npm1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for managing and operating Minecraft servers through multiple backend protocols including MCSManager API, RCON, and MSMP. It provides tools for instance lifecycle management, file operations, console commands, player administration, and server configuration with built-in security controls.712MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for the adm.tools / ukraine.com.ua hosting API, providing tools to manage hosting services, accounts, sites, and web apps.51MIT
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