Simple MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Simple MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceTurns 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.3MIT
- AlicenseCqualityFmaintenanceA 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.224 npm90MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP 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.-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for querying large JSON files using JSONPath expressions, enabling LLMs to efficiently search and extract information from large JSON data.311-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables local text analysis, statistical calculations, and system information retrieval via the Model Context Protocol over stdio.-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceExposes 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.81MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Both tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern with the 'create-' prefix, making the naming predictable and uniform.
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.
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.