Skip to main content
Glama
claudioed

polaris-mcp

by claudioed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to polaris-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Attenza

      maxhillaert
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides OAuth-based MCP integration and client-side tooling for connecting agents to a remote service, with CLI and plugin support.
      MIT

    • gitlab-mcp

      structured-world
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Full-coverage GitLab MCP server with 44 tools across 18 resource types. Agent-optimized CQRS design — one tool call handles complete multi-step operations. Supports OAuth 2.1, read-only mode, stdio/SSE/StreamableHTTP transports, and GraphQL-native work items with full hierarchy (epics,issues,etc)
      1,922 npm
      6
      Apache 2.0
    • @ratel-ai/mcp-server by ratel-ai

      @ratel-ai/mcp-serverofficial

      ratel-ai
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes a Ratel tool catalog over MCP with two tools (search_tools and invoke_tool), and includes a CLI for managing multi-scope MCP configurations, OAuth flows, and telemetry.
      77 npm
      13
      MIT

    • Brainbase MCP

      BrainbaseHQ
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables management of Brainbase agents, components, evals, tasks, and more via a remote MCP connection with OAuth authentication.
      2
      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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 16 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools map to clearly distinct resources (tribes, squads, targets, functions, evaluations, waivers, etc.), and the descriptions clarify boundaries. However, there is some read-model overlap: polaris_insights duplicates tribe/squad overview and target history actions already exposed in polaris_tribes and polaris_fitness_targets, and the provider/source/producer trio requires careful reading to distinguish. These overlaps are manageable but prevent a perfect score.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool uses a consistent polaris_ prefix followed by a snake_case plural resource noun (polaris_tribes, polaris_fitness_functions, polaris_waivers, etc.). The only minor deviation is the singular polaris_health, but it still fits the predictable pattern. Actions are consistently described inside the tool rather than encoded in names.

    Tool Count4/5

    At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3–15 sweet spot but reasonable for a domain with many distinct resources and lifecycles (topology, fitness functions, measurements, evaluations, waivers, events). Each tool earns its place by grouping all actions for one resource, avoiding an explosion of per-action tools. It is borderline heavy but well-scoped.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core lifecycle for most entities: create, version, activate, retire, evaluate, collect, waive, and consume events. Minor gaps exist—several resources (tribes, squads, targets, sources, producers, templates) lack update or delete operations, and some read-model queries are split across tools. These gaps are unlikely to block common agent workflows but keep the surface from being fully complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources