Skip to main content
Glama
dyneth02

Simple MCP Server

by dyneth02
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Simple MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • JSON MCP Server

      GongRzhe
      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
      39 npm
      90
      MIT

    • JSON Query MCP

      mgraczyk
      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
      -

    • UVG Local MCP Server

      Anggelie
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local text analysis, statistical calculations, and system information retrieval via the Model Context Protocol over stdio.
      -

    • mcpserve-py

      devaloi
      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

    • mcp-anvil-lite

      MichaelCPHP
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A minimal starting point for a Model Context Protocol server with stdio transport and one tool, enabling quick setup and custom tool addition.
      1
      -
    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

    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

    Resources