A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server for CodeRocket Deploy providing AI-generated CI/CD workflows and AI code review as tools inside Claude Code.
9
6 npm
MIT
edgegate-mcp
Officialby frozo-ai
Related Servers
Alternatives to edgegate-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for AI-powered image, audio, and video generation, enabling media creation directly from Claude, Cursor, and other MCP clients.1139 npmMIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables Claude Desktop to communicate with A2A protocol agents, allowing Claude to access extended capabilities through agent interactions.322-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that enhances Claude Code with evidence-first engineering, protocol gates, project-aware verification, auditable traces, and durable autonomous execution.5 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that turns coding workflows into explicit execution graphs (DAG) with deterministic command execution, human-in-the-loop gates, and tamper-proof run history for Claude Code.13 npmMIT
Fastn Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables dynamic tool registration and execution based on API definitions, providing seamless integration with services like Claude.ai and Cursor.ai.23MIT
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Scored across 58 tools
Disambiguation3/5
Several tool groups are very similar in name, such as list_devices vs. list_device_targets, setup_github_action vs. setup_bg_github_action, and the numerous check_* tools. The descriptions help differentiate them, but the naming alone creates a risk of misselection for agents.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, check_*, export_*), but there are a few outliers like llm_compile and recorder_status that break the convention. The use of check vs. get for status-like operations is also somewhat inconsistent.
Tool Count1/5
With 58 tools, the server presents an extremely large API surface. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., generic status-checking with a job-type parameter), and this count far exceeds what is typically manageable for an MCP server.
Completeness3/5
The server covers many domains (workspaces, integrations, eval sets, BYO storage, runs), but there are notable gaps: no way to list or delete pipelines, no update/versioning for promptpacks, and no workspace deletion. These are core lifecycle operations for the main resources.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues