A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEnables search, analytics, and visualization of Claude Code sessions with MCP tools for session management, recovery, and insights.
10
49 PyPI
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 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables 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 gradedqualityFmaintenanceEnables MCP-capable coding agents to discover peers, exchange messages across sessions, machines, accounts, and tools, and wake idle agents through a self-hosted relay.38 npmApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables 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.700 npm5MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn 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.7138 PyPI5MIT
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
ActivityNo data
ResponsivenessOutdated data