Skip to main content
Glama
borgels
by borgels

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-server-kilango

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Production-grade MCP server that gives AI agents safe access to your local dev environment: filesystem, databases, processes, and OpenAPI specs.
      15
      28 npm
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes governance, trust-scoring, compliance, guardrail, cost, drift, and supply-chain scanning tools and resources to any MCP client over stdio, Streamable HTTP, or legacy HTTP+SSE. It lets agents route every tool call through a deterministic five-way decision (allow, redact, require approval, deny, or quarantine) with hash-chained evidence, human approval workflows, and in-agent trust gates for LangChain, LangGraph, and Google ADK.
      30
      44 PyPI
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCPGate aggregates multiple MCP servers into a single unified endpoint, enabling centralized tool management with granular filtering, automatic namespacing, and observability. Features a real-time web dashboard and optional PostgreSQL-backed audit trails for monitoring and controlling AI tool access across local and remote deployments.
      6 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A comprehensive MCP server for the ClickUp API exposing 166 tools to manage Spaces, Folders, Lists, Tasks, Docs, and more, enabling LLMs to read and drive a ClickUp Workspace.
      100
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for agentic task orchestration and management, enabling AI agents to create goals, plan tasks with acceptance criteria, track dependencies, request human input, and provide proof of completion.
      24 npm
      2
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 48 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (portal, page, block, app, widget, connection), making them distinguishable. Some minor overlap exists: kilango_add_content_block vs kilango_place_widget both add items to a page, and kilango_move_block vs kilango_update_content_block/kilango_update_widget vs kilango_reorder_blocks all deal with positioning/moving elements. The descriptions do help disambiguate these cases, but an agent could misselect between move/reorder/update-position tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All 48 tools follow a consistent `kilango_` prefix with verb_noun naming: list/get/create/update/delete/archive/publish/unpublish/save/add/place/activate/deactivate/install/uninstall/connect each pair with a clear object (portal, page, block, widget, app, connection). The pattern holds uniformly across all tools, making the naming predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    48 tools is on the larger side, but the domain is genuinely broad — portal management, page building, widget placement, app lifecycle, connection management, and an escape hatch. Each tool covers a fairly distinct operation. However, there are many overlapping position/move tools (move_block, reorder_blocks, update_content_block, update_widget) that could arguably be consolidated, and the count feels slightly heavy.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface is remarkably complete for the domain: full portal lifecycle (create, update, get, list, publish, unpublish, archive, delete, preview, readiness), page CRUD with fine-grained block/widget operations, app catalog and installation/activation lifecycle, connection management, vocabulary discovery, navigation editing with ETag handling, and an escape-hatch call_operation for anything not covered. There are no obvious dead ends — even readiness blockers and force-publish edge cases are handled.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues