Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to ready-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to check whether a GitHub issue is already taken before volunteering, by analyzing linked PRs, assignees, claimant comments, AI contribution policies, and repo health to return GO, TAKEN, or CAUTION verdicts.
      3
      212 PyPI
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to scout, rank, and preflight software work before implementation, returning evidence-backed ACT, VERIFY, or SKIP decisions for issues and pull requests.
      26 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to submit work for external review before declaring a task done, receiving evidence-backed fix lists and verdicts based on git-measured changes and calibrated quality scoring.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables agents to vet a GitHub issue before committing time to it, returning a landability verdict (GO, RISKY, TAKEN, GATED, STALE) plus repo friction scores, gate evidence, and ranked scans of a repository's starter issues. Also exposes contribution automation tools that draft claim comments, prep a fork and branch with a repo-specific checklist, and open a pull request once basics like DCO sign-off pass, with all writes dry-run by default.
      0
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to scan GitHub repositories for security vulnerabilities, deployment blockers, and code quality issues. It provides detailed findings and auto-generated code patches to help developers ensure their code is production-ready.
      18 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one evaluates issue readiness and the other predicts likely file edits. Their outputs and workflows are separate enough that an agent should not confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_readiness and predict_footprint. There is no mixed convention or vague naming.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server has a narrow purpose, but two tools is thin for a useful workflow surface. Each tool earns its place, yet the set feels borderline minimal.

    Completeness4/5

    The core operations for issue handoff are covered: readiness checking and footprint prediction. Minor supporting operations could be added, but no major workflow dead end is obvious.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues