Skip to main content
Glama
Cheesecube MCP Server

Cheesecube MCP Server

by dwellis

Related Servers

Alternatives to Cheesecube MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Exposes specialized agents as MCP tools so users can manage and triage Jira tasks, analyze repositories for health and conventions, generate commit/PR/DevOps patterns, assemble reports, produce slides and infographics, and run semantic search over a knowledge base. Everything is invokable directly from inside a coding session in Claude Code, Cursor, or Claude Desktop.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes Cursor Cloud Agent operations as native MCP tools, letting MCP-capable clients launch new agents, list and inspect recent ones, send follow-up prompts to resume them, and cancel running runs. Tool arguments are validated with Zod schemas and results include agent ID, URL, and final assistant output.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to claim, work, and submit tasks on SerenEdge projects by exposing the platform's agent API as MCP tools.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients such as Claude, Cursor, VS Code, and Windsurf to read and manage workspaces, projects, tasks, and AI agents, and to build automations through natural language. It also includes an OpenAPI codegen that turns any OpenAPI spec into MCP tools.
      2,807 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a unique action-resource pair (e.g., list_engines vs. list_templates), and no two tools overlap in functionality. The distinctions are clear and unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, search_, create_, preview_, publish_), with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools cover the core operations for managing engines, templates, assets, and cheeses. This is a well-scoped set that is neither sparse nor bloated for the apparent domain.

    Completeness3/5

    The set includes create, read (list/get/search), and publish actions, but lacks update and delete operations for both templates and cheeses. These are notable gaps in lifecycle management, though the primary creation and publication flows are covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues