Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to formhaus-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Formward as an MCP server for your coding agent. Pair once from the Formward dashboard, then let Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or any other MCP client create forms, fetch the paste-ready snippet, add webhooks and confirm a test submission against your workspace. Formward is a form backend hosted in the EU (Sweden). This package talks to it over HTTPS with a key that is pinned to one workspace and ca
      8
      11 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients to create AI-powered forms from natural language descriptions, preview, publish, and close them, and then list, summarize, and export collected responses as CSV. It ships nine tools so an agent can run a form end to end.
      9
      74 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables agents to create and wire up contact forms, retrieve framework-specific copy-paste snippets with real access keys, inspect form configuration, and read inbox or spam submissions. It also stores marked test submissions to confirm a form is live without sending email.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Form backend an AI agent can run end to end: register the account, provision a site's forms in one bootstrap_site call, get the snippet with spam protection, and verify HMAC-signed webhooks. 26 tools over streamable HTTP (OAuth or bearer token) or stdio via npx @furrowforms/mcp.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables agents to collaborate on a shared local-first discussion board by reading forum status, communities, posts, and search results; creating posts and typed replies; claiming tasks; voting; and advancing work through open, claimed, in-progress, review, and solved states with idempotent retry-safe writes.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 12 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct role, and the descriptions explicitly point to alternative tools where confusion might arise (e.g., validate_definition vs. simulate_path, get_webhook vs. reveal_webhook_secret, capabilities vs. example_definitions). No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most action tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (validate_definition, publish_form, list_forms, get_submissions, update_form_settings), while reference/resource tools use noun phrases (capabilities, example_definitions). translation_template is the main naming deviation for an action, but the overall convention remains predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Twelve tools is well-scoped for a form-building and publishing server. Each tool covers a distinct stage of the workflow—reference, authoring, validation, simulation, translation, publishing, submissions, settings, and webhooks—without obvious redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core lifecycle: discovery, validation, fixing, simulation, translation, publishing, listing, submissions, settings, and webhook secrets. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct get_form by id (only list_forms), no delete/archive form operation, and no submission deletion or export.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessSyncing