Skip to main content
Glama
automatizatodo

CAPforge

by automatizatodo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to CAPforge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • CAP MCP Plugin

      gavdilabs
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A CAP plugin that automatically generates MCP servers from your CAP services, transforming OData services into AI-accessible resources, tools, and prompts with minimal configuration.
      587 npm
      61
      Apache 2.0

    • SAP HANA MCP Server

      josecarlos3390
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server enabling AI agents to explore SAP HANA schemas, execute SQL with guardrails, and access database metadata, monitoring, and business domain semantics.
      44
      978 npm
      MIT

    • abap-mcp-adt

      ChinhHN-DEV
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for SAP ABAP development that enables AI assistants and code editors to interact with SAP systems via ABAP Developer Toolkit (ADT) APIs, supporting read, create, update, and delete of ABAP objects.
      100
      70 npm
      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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: scaffold vs write vs validate vs analyze vs lint are well-separated by phase. However, there are three validation tools (cap_validate, cap_lint, cap_deploy_check) and two UI5 tools (ui5_validate_view, ui5_lint) with overlapping boundaries that could cause misselection, though their descriptions do explain the distinct layers.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow an extremely consistent verb_noun pattern with clear prefixes (cap_ for CAP operations, ui5_ for UI5 operations). Verbs are predictable (validate, scaffold, lint, analyze, write, deploy_check, project_context) and 'cap_' aligns with UI5 namespace separation, making the naming highly predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    10 tools is well-scoped for a dual-domain server covering both CAP backend and UI5 frontend migration. Each tool earns its place: scaffolding, writing, project context, three CAP validation layers, three UI5 layers, and analysis. The count balances full lifecycle coverage without bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The lifecycle is well covered: read context (cap_project_context), analyze legacy (cap_analyze_legacy_ui5), scaffold (cap_scaffold_entity, ui5_scaffold_section), write (cap_write_files), and three-layer validation on both sides (compile, lint, deploy-check; view-validate, ui5lint). Minor gaps include no explicit update/delete/modify operations and no scaffolding for non-entity CAP artifacts like services or annotations beyond entities.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources