Skip to main content
Glama
codestable

cs-agent-mcp

by codestable
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to cs-agent-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • personal-mcp

      buYoung
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that bridges coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI) via ACP for pair programming, enabling agents to consult each other as tools.
      3
      -

    • Polyagent MCP

      execveat
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables any MCP-compatible client to use existing Claude Code agents from .claude/agents/ directories. Spawns agents in separate CLI sessions for better context optimization and performance across Codex, Gemini CLI, and other AI coding assistants.
      3
      MIT

    • s-gw MCP server

      sgateway
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local stdio MCP server that enables coding agents to discover credential handles and create scoped action requests with local approval and sanitized output.
      7
      69 npm
      15
      Apache 2.0
    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

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 14 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools have clearly distinct roles with detailed descriptions, but the multiple wait/read variants (wait_message, wait_turn, get_message, get_turn, events) create some overlapping surface that could cause misselection without careful reading.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the cs_agent_ prefix and use consistent lowercase_with_underscores, but the verb pattern is mixed: some are bare verbs (create, list, send, cancel, destroy) while others are verb_noun (get_message, wait_turn). This is still predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    14 tools is well within the optimal range and each tool serves a distinct need in the delegation lifecycle: capabilities, creation, messaging, waiting, permissions, cancellation, and destruction. The count feels appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The lifecycle is well covered: create, list, status, send, wait, cancel, destroy, plus capability discovery and permission handling. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update_agent or non-turn messaging tool, but these are likely out of scope and core workflows are fully supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources