Skip to main content
Glama
erova

VibeSharing MCP Server

by erova

Related Servers

Alternatives to VibeSharing MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Connects multiple AI coding agents on a team through a shared hub, giving each agent live teammate status, a versioned master prompt, a shared task board, questions and answers, and file claims so agents don't overwrite each other's work. Works across Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor while code itself continues to flow through git.
      10
      1,771 npm
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to create interactive prototypes, annotate UI elements, generate PRDs, and track which annotations and documents need updating after changes.
      22
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to contribute to and query a team-shared project memory, storing human-confirmed decisions with source and scope so work can continue across machines.
      12
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to persistently save, search, checkpoint, and restore project context across sessions, including decisions, progress, and file state. It supports shared channels, git-aware organization, and batch operations for long-running or parallel development workflows.
      250 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants like Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex to share chat logs, terminal history, and session context with each other. Eliminates the need to re-explain context when switching between different AI coding tools.
      2
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 21 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., list vs. create vs. deploy vs. share), but the deploy/share family (deploy_prototype, deploy_files, share_html, import_repo) could be misselected without careful description reading. The descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate, but the overlapping actions of deploying and registering create minor ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_prototypes, create_collection, send_support_request). Even multi-word names like close_feedback_loop and generate_feedback_topics maintain the convention. No camelCase or mixed styles detected.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 21 tools, the server is at the 'heavy' end of the borderline range. While each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose, the count feels substantial for a typical MCP server, and an agent may need to scan many options before choosing.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers a wide range of operations: authentication, deployment, sharing, feedback triage, context management, and diagnostics. However, there are notable gaps: no update or delete operations for prototypes or collections, and no get-by-ID function for prototypes. These limitations could force agents to work around them.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues