Skip to main content
Glama
1c-odata-mcp

1c-odata-mcp

by foxnaim

Related Servers

Alternatives to 1c-odata-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as Cursor and Claude to query and inspect 1C:Enterprise infobase data via COM without configuration extensions or changes, using 1C query language and metadata tools.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Bridges AI agents to 1C:Enterprise via OData, enabling natural language queries of business entities like counterparties and invoices with read-only access.
      8
      46 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Connects to 1C:Enterprise through OData to read business records, preview field-by-field changes, and create or update permitted catalog items and draft documents only after a human explicitly approves each write.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables ChatGPT's desktop Codex app to query a live 1C (1С) database through OData in read-only mode, so users can ask plain-language questions about sales, stock, items, and counterparties, and get answers, charts, and dashboards without exports or programming.
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to ask natural-language questions about live 1C:Enterprise data and receive answers from read-only OData sources, covering sales, inventory, items, and counterparties; supports direct connections or an SSH tunnel for IP-allowlisted installations.
      9
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to work with remote 1C:Enterprise through a local MCP bridge and an EPF agent over outbound HTTPS, supporting metadata inspection, queries, BSL execution, document access, file transfer, and configuration changes without COM or database publication.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 75 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but several direct overlaps exist: read.accounting.get_settlement_settings and read.accounting.get_contract_settlement_settings have near-identical descriptions (same for the write pair), write.entity.create_folder vs write.counterparty.create_group, write.entity.move_to_folder vs write.counterparty.set_group, and generic write.entity.update_entity vs specific update_counterparty/update_nomenclature. An agent can usually pick correctly from descriptions, but these duplicate pairs create real misselection risk.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Names follow a clear namespaced pattern (read.<domain>.<verb_noun>, write.<domain>.<verb_noun>), e.g. read.analytics.get_sales, write.warehouse.create_writeoff. Minor deviations exist: write.operation.status lacks a verb, and legacy alias pairs carry different names for the same tool, but the overall convention is predictable.

    Tool Count1/5

    75 tools is far beyond a comfortable surface for an accounting-domain MCP; there are also literal duplicate aliases and many near-duplicate document creators (create_act, create_services_act, create_shipment, create_invoice, create_supplier_invoice). The surface is heavy enough to overwhelm tool selection and should be consolidated.

    Completeness4/5

    Coverage is deep: schema introspection, document search/get, extensive read analytics (sales, debtors, cashflow, settlement settings), plus writes for most document types, catalogs, and entity updates. Gaps are minor: no hard delete/rollback of documents (only mark_for_deletion), and some entities (e.g. price lists, users) are only reachable via generic update_entity rather than dedicated tools.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues