Skip to main content
Glama
dragosh29

Amiqus MCP server

by dragosh29

Related Servers

Alternatives to Amiqus MCP server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      It enables MCP clients such as Claude and ChatGPT to read an estate agency's Dezrez Rezi CRM data, including properties and their timelines, people, groups, and offers. It is read-only and applies privacy redactions by default.
      10
      MIT
    • -
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Claude, ChatGPT and other MCP clients to read practice-management data including organization, clinicians, diaries, availability, bookings, patients, invoices, payments, staff tasks, services, and locations, and optionally create staff tasks, create bookings, and cancel bookings.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as Claude and ChatGPT to read events, performances, seating, packages, visits, transactions, and organisation context from a ticketing channel, and, when writes are enabled, create and release reservations.
      10
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A hosted, OAuth-authenticated MCP endpoint exposing 176 tools that let AI assistants read and write jobs, candidates, applications, interviews, scorecards, prospects, talent pools, and imports within an organization's own applicant tracking data, scoped to the signed-in user's existing permissions.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables existing apps to expose their users and data to external AI agents via MCP with OAuth 2.1 authentication and scoped tools.
      313 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct scope: list_clients/get_client target clients, list_records/list_client_records are differentiated by team-wide vs single-client scope, and get_record/get_check target distinct resources. The list vs get pairs are unambiguous, and the descriptions explicitly clarify boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (list_clients, get_client, list_records, get_record, get_check, list_templates, list_webhooks). The lone outlier case_status_summary uses a noun-phrase convention, a minor deviation from the otherwise consistent scheme.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well-scoped for an onboarding domain, covering clients, records, checks, templates, aggregates and webhooks without redundancy. Each tool earns its place and none feels filler.

    Completeness3/5

    The read surface is broad and coherent, but the server is entirely read-only: there is no create_client, create_record, or decision/approval action despite the domain centering on onboarding workflows and the templates description referencing create_record. These notable missing write operations limit end-to-end lifecycle coverage.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues