Pacemaker MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to Pacemaker MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for managing SSH connections to remote servers, providing host registry, session pool, and secure command execution with read-only protection.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceSSH-based MCP server that enables remote execution of SSH commands, file transfers, and secure server management via the MCP protocol.ISC
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA local MCP server that enables running structured commands and fleet operations on SSH hosts, supporting secure file transfer, persistent sessions, and bastion-based discovery.-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA server that enables secure interaction with remote SSH hosts through standardized MCP interface, providing functions like listing hosts, executing commands, and transferring files using native SSH tools.7216 npm98MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceA secure SSH MCP server that enables execution of read-only diagnostic commands over SSH, preventing modifications to remote systems.24102 PyPI7AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA secure SSH-based MCP server for diagnosing remote servers. It allows AI agents to execute read-only commands and read files automatically, while requiring user confirmation for write operations.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 26 tools
There are many overlapping status/read tools: pcs_status, pcs_status_full, pcs_status_xml, pcs_cluster_status, pcs_status_resources, pcs_resource_list, and pcs_resource_config all expose related cluster or resource information. Agents would have difficulty choosing between them without reading descriptions closely, and several boundaries are unclear.
All tools share a pcs_ prefix, but the naming pattern is mixed: some use object_verb (pcs_cluster_start, pcs_resource_enable), others use verb-like object suffixes (pcs_status_resources, pcs_status_xml), and list/show are used inconsistently. It is readable but not predictable enough for reliable selection.
26 tools is excessive for the apparent scope, especially given redundant status variants and multiple log retrieval tools that could be consolidated. Many of the tools overlap heavily, so the count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.
The server covers inspection and some operational actions like enabling, disabling, moving, and banning resources, but it lacks configuration CRUD: no resource create/delete/update, no constraint creation/deletion, no property changes, and no stonith device management. This creates significant gaps for a tool set claiming to manage a Pacemaker cluster.