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.
      19
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable chat clients like ChatGPT, Claude, and Cursor to read, search, edit, and run commands on a local machine, including git operations and browser automation. Runs as a local daemon with workspace path jails, safety modes, checkpoints, and human-in-the-loop approval for edits and shell commands.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables web AI clients and local IDEs to securely operate a local machine through an OAuth-gated MCP endpoint, with governed tools for files, shell, search, Git, SQLite, browser automation, DevTools, background tasks, localhost services, clipboard, notifications, ports, Postman, and AIObox windows.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables web-based AI chat clients such as Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok to operate a user's local machine through a single OAuth-gated, whitelist-protected MCP endpoint exposing tools for file editing, shell commands, search, Git, SQLite, browser automation, DevTools, background tasks, localhost service fetching, clipboard, notifications, ports, and Postman control.
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      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.
      203
      -

    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