Skip to main content
Glama
ShreyasBidwai

Looping Agent MCP

by ShreyasBidwai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Looping Agent MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • hamgoose

      cooked-ham
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables goal-driven mission orchestration for Goose, turning a user goal into a structured plan with an approval gate, isolated workers in git worktrees, dual validation, auto-correction, and crash recovery to produce validated code.
      19
      MIT

    • misterdev

      dcondrey
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An autonomous, extensible LLM build orchestrator. Give it a repo and a goal; it decomposes the goal into tasks, edits code, and gates every change on build/tests/lint, reverting regressions. Polygot, cost-aware model selection, pluggable via entry points. Ships as an MCP server so any client can drive it in plain English.
      15
      3
      AGPL 3.0

    • tianshu-mcp

      lanlan0811
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables orchestrating external AI agents to execute development tasks with asynchronous management, automated acceptance verification, failure rework loops, and optional visual baseline validation.
      11
      1,942 npm
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_done for verification, confirm for manager to set criteria, get_next_action for step retrieval, propose for goal definition, report_result for result reporting, and request_gate for permission. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (check_done, get_next_action, report_result, request_gate), though confirm and propose are single verbs. The naming style is consistent with lowercase and underscores.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 6 tools, the server covers the core interactions of a looping agent workflow (propose, confirm, get action, report, check done, request gate) without being excessive or insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: goal proposal and criteria confirmation, action retrieval, result reporting with verification, done checking, and gate requests. Minor gap: no explicit tool for listing all criteria, but get_next_action provides failing criteria and check_done tests all.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources