Skip to main content
Glama
dyneth02

Simple MCP Server

by dyneth02

Related Servers

Alternatives to Simple MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Turns any JSON file (catalogue, FAQ, price list) into an MCP server with three read-only tools: list with paging, keyword search across chosen fields, and get by id. Runs over stdio for Claude Desktop, Claude Code and Cursor.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server implementation that enables LLMs to query and manipulate JSON data using JSONPath syntax with extended operations for filtering, sorting, transforming, and aggregating data.
      2
      24 npm
      90
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for reading and listing JSON documents, designed to be used with Claude Haiku and Headroom compression to reduce token usage. It demonstrates an end-to-end MCP tool-use loop with stdio transport.
      -
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server for querying large JSON files using JSONPath expressions, enabling LLMs to efficiently search and extract information from large JSON data.
      3
      11
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local text analysis, statistical calculations, and system information retrieval via the Model Context Protocol over stdio.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes SQLite database query tools and markdown document resources over JSON-RPC 2.0 stdio transport, enabling AI assistants to read and search documents and execute read-only SQL queries.
      8
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools both create users, but one creates a user with specified data and the other generates a random user, which is a clear distinction. However, the names are nearly identical and could be confused without reading descriptions carefully.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with the 'create-' prefix, making the naming predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and at the low end of the reasonable range. The count is borderline, as the server's simple scope could justify it, but it might be too minimal for practical use.

    Completeness2/5

    The tools only cover user creation, leaving out essential operations like getting, listing, updating, or deleting users. This creates a significant gap in the expected lifecycle for user management.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues