Skip to main content
Glama
comindspace

GatewayMCP

Official
by comindspace
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to GatewayMCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • nice

      fainir
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides a secure MCP gateway for AI agents to access APIs without exposing raw credentials, with scoped access, audit logging, and OAuth support.
      MIT

    • Laravel MCP Gateway

      lionking-123
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides 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.
      1
      MIT

    • production-mcp-server

      TushGoel
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to safely call enterprise tools through a governed MCP gateway with permission enforcement, blast-radius controls, input validation, and a full audit trail for every invocation.
      MIT

    • Daemoon

      daemoon-dev
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Gives AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) unified, secure access to dev infrastructure (Vercel, GitHub, Supabase, Cloudflare, GCP) via a single MCP token.
      MIT

    • SAP MCP Server

      hugoconsulting
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to securely connect with SAP ABAP and BTP services, allowing execution of function modules, BAPIs, table reads, and various BTP operations through MCP.
      1
      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

    C2.2/5.0

    Scored across 94 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    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.

    Tool Count1/5

    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.

    Completeness3/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources