Skip to main content
Glama
crunchtools

MCP WorkBoard CrunchTools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP WorkBoard CrunchTools

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • HDW MCP Server

      anysiteio
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that provides comprehensive access to LinkedIn data and functionality, enabling data retrieval and user account management through the HorizonDataWave API.
      26
      26 npm
      63
      JavaScript
      MIT

    • Code Sandbox MCP Server

      philschmid
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A secure Model Context Protocol server that allows AI assistants and LLM applications to safely execute Python and JavaScript code snippets in containerized environments.
      2
      203
      MIT

    • WeWork MCP Server

      FOX2920
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server providing access to WeWork project management data, enabling project search, task analysis, and statistics retrieval through Claude and other LLM clients.
      6
      -

    • MCP Server

      the-real-therealorry
      -
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      A production-grade Model Context Protocol server that enables secure management of context data through a React dashboard, supporting ZIP processing, context approval workflows, and system monitoring.
      205 npm
      -
    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

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 22 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource-action combination (e.g., create_activity, get_activity, list_activities). Tools for different resources (activities, objectives, key results, users, workstreams, teams) have clear boundaries. The few similar-sounding tools (e.g., get_my_objectives vs get_objectives) are well-differentiated by parameters and descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow the consistent pattern `workboard_<verb>_<noun>_tool`, using snake_case throughout. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, update. This makes tool selection predictable and unambiguous.

    Tool Count4/5

    At 22 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15) but still reasonable given the complexity of the domain (multiple resource types with CRUD and queries). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no tool feels superfluous.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers most CRUD operations for primary resources but lacks delete tools for activities, objectives, users, and workstreams. Also missing update for objectives and create/delete for key results. These gaps could hinder workflows requiring removal of entities.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources