Skip to main content
Glama
chenpu17

@chenpu17/web-bridge-mcp

by chenpu17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Related Servers

Alternatives to @chenpu17/web-bridge-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • web-basics-mcp

      yoloyash
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A self-hosted MCP server providing web search and URL fetching tools, running locally without external API keys or accounts.
      2
      76 npm
      MIT

    • url-context-mcp

      SkillfulElectro
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that fetches web pages and extracts clean, AI-usable context from them, enabling tools for link discovery, content search, and integrated fetch-and-search operations.
      5
      13 npm
      1
      MIT

    • mcp-docs

      pgupta1795
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for documentation search that automatically indexes web documentation sites and provides semantic, full-text, or hybrid search capabilities.
      2 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

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are clearly separated by purpose: web_search vs web_fetch are distinct (search vs retrieve URL), and resolve-library-id vs query-docs are distinct (resolve ID vs query docs). There is slight overlap between web_search and resolve-library-id for library queries, but explicit guidance to prefer Context7 tools resolves this ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming convention is inconsistent: web_search and web_fetch use snake_case with verb_noun pattern, while resolve-library-id and query-docs use kebab-case. This mixed pattern (underscore vs hyphen) creates a lack of uniformity across the tool set, making it harder to anticipate tool names.

    Tool Count5/5

    With only 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped for a web-bridge purpose: one search, one fetch, one library resolver, and one doc query tool. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers complete workflows: general web search leads to web_fetch for content retrieval, and library resolution leads to query-docs for documentation. No obvious dead ends or missing operations are apparent for the stated hybrid purpose of bridging general web and library documentation access.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources