A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceEnables search, analytics, and visualization of Claude Code sessions with MCP tools for session management, recovery, and insights.
10
1
MIT
Claude Bridge
Related Servers
Alternatives to Claude Bridge
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for inter-agent communication. Gives multiple Claude Code sessions a shared message board, agent registry, and orchestration layer — backed by a cloud relay so agents can coordinate across machines, repos, and teams.860 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables two people's Claude Code agents to communicate directly on the same project, providing a permission-safe MCP relay for cross-account, cross-machine messaging.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables multiple Claude Code sessions to communicate and coordinate through broadcast and peer-to-peer messaging.2 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables real-time communication between Claude Code instances across multiple machines via WebSocket, allowing context sharing, task handoffs, and coordination between sessions.262 npm3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets multiple agent sessions (e.g., Claude Code, Claude Desktop) on the same machine communicate over shared channels like walkie-talkies, enabling them to exchange messages and coordinate tasks without any central broker.230 PyPI4MIT
tincanofficial
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables live Claude Code and Codex sessions on the same machine to send each other text messages directly. It provides peer discovery, message sending, and a shared message log through MCP tools.46,093 npmMIT
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Scored across 13 tools
Disambiguation4/5
The message and work-queue tools are mostly clearly separated, but a few pairs have fuzzy boundaries: bridge_receive/bridge_wait and bridge_send/bridge_enqueue could easily be selected incorrectly before reading the full descriptions. The lease-token and consumer-cursor mechanisms do, however, keep the intended workflows distinct.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools consistently share the bridge_ prefix and use lowercase_snake_case, making the family predictable and discoverable. However, the naming is not uniformly verb_noun: some tools are bare verbs (bridge_send, bridge_receive, bridge_fail), while others are nouns (bridge_channels, bridge_status, bridge_tasks).
Tool Count5/5
Thirteen tools is reasonable for a combined durable-message bus and task-queue server, and each tool covers a distinct lifecycle step or inspection need. The count stays within the sweet spot and does not feel padded.
Completeness4/5
The overall surface is functionally strong: messaging covers send, consume, wait, acknowledge, clear, and inspect, while the queue side claims, completes, fails, and reviews tasks. Minor gaps remain around single-message deletion, task-queue clearing, and direct dead-letter replay, but they are likely workable via the existing inspect/enqueue operations.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessResponsive