Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Localbridge-MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Connects ChatGPT and MCP clients to authorized local development environments, enabling secure file access, shell execution, persistent tasks, browser/desktop control, and remote management of projects.
      15
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables secure remote access to your computer's filesystem and terminal through MCP, allowing AI assistants to manage files, run commands, and automate tasks from anywhere via a hosted relay.
      145
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables ChatGPT to access a remote computer or server via an outbound-only agent, providing filesystem inspection, file editing, Git inspection, and optional shell execution through MCP.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables ChatGPT and other MCP clients to browse, search, edit and upload files, run commands and interactive terminals, inspect Git history and worktrees, dispatch coding agents, and install composable plugins within locally registered workspaces. Requests execute under the user's own machine with per-request approval or auto-approval, keeping files, tasks and results local unless explicitly returned.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 17 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are clearly grouped by domain (file, search, shell) and each has a distinct action and object. The only potential overlap is lb_read_text vs. lb_read_many_texts, but the single vs. batch distinction is explicit. Overall, misselection is unlikely.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'lb_' prefix and follow an action-object pattern, though some use verb_noun (e.g., read_text, write_text) and others noun_verb (e.g., search_start, shell_kill). This minor inconsistency is offset by the predictable structure and domain grouping.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 17 tools covering file operations, search, and shell sessions, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a specific function without redundancy, and the number is neither too thin nor overwhelming.

    Completeness3/5

    File operations cover create, read, update, move, and listing, but there is no delete/remove tool. Search and shell lifecycles are well covered. The missing delete operation is a notable gap, though agents might work around it via shell commands.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues