Skip to main content
Glama
dspenard

MCP Chat

by dspenard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Chat

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCP Chat

      MeeraMendhe
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A command-line interface application enabling interactive chat with AI models via the Anthropic API. It supports document retrieval, command-based prompts, and extensible tool integrations through the MCP architecture.
      2
      -

    • MCP Chat

      adijad
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A command-line interface application that enables interactive chat with AI models through the Anthropic API, supporting document retrieval, command-based prompts, and extensible MCP tool integrations.
      -

    • MCP Chat

      marbo786
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A command-line interface application for interactive chat with AI models via the Anthropic API. It supports document retrieval, command-based prompts, and extensible tool integrations through the MCP architecture.
      -

    • MCP Chat

      ziasial7425
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Command-line interface for interactive chat with AI models via Anthropic API, supporting document retrieval and command-based prompts through MCP.
      2
      -
    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

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one reads document content, the other edits by replacing text. There is zero overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a verb_noun pattern (read_doc_contents, edit_document), but the noun forms differ slightly ('doc_contents' vs 'document'). This minor inconsistency doesn't hinder readability.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a document manipulation domain. While the narrow focus is defensible, the count is below the typical 3-15 range and borders on insufficient.

    Completeness3/5

    The server provides read and edit (replace) operations, but lacks create, delete, list, or other common document lifecycle operations. These gaps could be worked around but represent notable missing functionality.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources