GatewayMCP
OfficialRelated Servers
Alternatives to GatewayMCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides a secure MCP gateway for AI agents to access APIs without exposing raw credentials, with scoped access, audit logging, and OAuth support.MIT

Civic MCP Gatewayofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to connect to tools and data through a governed MCP endpoint with agent identity, scoped permissions, guardrails, and full audit trails. Access is user-controlled and can be revoked instantly, with every tool call logged by agent identity and timestamp.MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI clients to securely access and control diverse backend assets through a unified MCP entry point, with centralized management of credentials, authorization groups, and audit logging.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides an OAuth-protected, scoped, and audited MCP server that lets AI assistants safely query business data through a fixed set of tools without direct database access.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes scattered business REST APIs and read-only databases to AI clients through a single MCP endpoint with unified API-key authentication, service- and operation-level authorization, department-scoped filtering, masking, and audit logging. AI agents discover only the tools and data they are permitted to use, without needing to know endpoint addresses, SQL, or credentials.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides a single MCP server endpoint that lets AI agents connect to many real third-party services through OAuth, with user approvals, activity logs, scoped read/write grants, and one-tap access removal.17 npmAGPL 3.0
TDQS
Scored across 94 tools
Many tools have overlapping or alias-like purposes (e.g., gateway_knowledge_spaces vs gateway_knowledge_space_list, gateway_knowledge_document_search vs gateway_knowledge_search, gateway_knowledge_space_add_member vs gateway_knowledge_member_add). The work_* tools have empty descriptions, making them hard to distinguish from each other and from process/factory tools.
Most tools follow a gateway_<domain>_<action> pattern, which is consistent. However, there are deviations like gateway_notifications_list (plural domain) vs gateway_notification_get (singular), and several compatibility aliases that break the pattern. The empty descriptions for some work_* tools also make naming less predictable.
94 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP server. The server covers many domains (memory, knowledge, notifications, telemetry, admin, access, approvals, work, factory, privacy, files), which makes it feel like a monolithic gateway rather than a focused tool set. This extreme count overwhelms agents and reduces coherence.
The server covers a broad range of domains with CRUD-like operations for knowledge, notifications, access, and approvals. However, the work_* tools have empty descriptions and appear to lack obvious lifecycle operations (e.g., no clear update/cancel for work items), and the factory/process tools are exploratory rather than actionable. The surface is wide but uneven.