Skip to main content
Glama
adi0ri

gateway_lab.mcp_server

by adi0ri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to gateway_lab.mcp_server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Easy MCP Server

      joshwyatt
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A simple toolkit for creating MCP servers with stdio and SSE transport, auto-validating tools via Pydantic.
      MIT

    • paperclip-mcp

      shanewiseman
      F
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Schema-driven MCP server that exposes all Paperclip API operations as typed MCP tools over stdio or Streamable HTTP, supporting both authenticated and local_mode deployments.
      100
      -

    • Schema Sentinel

      SanjoyDat1
      -
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      An MCP server that validates tool calls against JSON Schema, performs deterministic repair, redacts secrets, and maintains a hash-chained audit ledger.
      -

    • veriloop

      arvindcr4
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes a verified tool registry (calculator, sandboxed file read, web fetch) over MCP stdio, enabling any MCP-capable client to reuse the same tools from the inspectable ReAct loop.
      3
      MIT
    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

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools perform clearly separate operations: retrieving a customer record versus triggering a refund. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_customer_record, trigger_refund). The naming is concise, predictable, and consistent.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is at the low end of what feels useful; for a mock lab it may be intentional, but the surface is thin. Each tool earns its place, but there is little room for broader workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers a single lookup and a single action, with no way to list customers, check refund status, or cancel/reverse a refund. Agents would hit dead ends for any multi-step workflow beyond a simple demo.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources