AgentDock MCP Harness
Related Servers
Alternatives to AgentDock MCP Harness
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables a ChatGPT Web conversation to act as a coding agent on a VPS, with project-bound chats, Git worktree isolation, live activity streaming, structured questions, and file/image exchange via MCP.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceConnects ChatGPT Web to a self-hosted local coding workbench, enabling file editing, shell commands, Git/GitHub operations, multi-workspace management, code review, terminal processes, checkpoints, and optional Docker sandboxing.17MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceGives ChatGPT and Claude Code policy-scoped access to a local repository checkout, allowing them to list, search, read, edit, and create files, run operator-approved fixture tests, and inspect git diffs. It confines operations to configured paths and resources, and supports an independent read-only review workflow.1 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables ChatGPT to securely control remote development servers over OAuth-protected MCP, exposing workspace-bounded tools for file editing, command execution, Git operations, and running Codex or GitHub Copilot subagents.8 npmMIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceSecure agent coding runtime for local Git repos with policy enforcement, RBAC, sessions, approval workflow, and sandboxed writes, optionally connectable to ChatGPT via Secure MCP Tunnel.86MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables ordinary ChatGPT web Chat to work directly on a local machine over a private MCP tunnel — reading and editing project files, running shell commands and tests, loading local skills, manipulating images, and driving Chrome — without spinning up a separate coding agent or additional model-generation API calls. It also supports multi-step task plans with persisted execution receipts and acceptance checks so results from real runs are returned to the conversation.-
TDQS
Scored across 29 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear prefixes for domains (skill, git, audit, approval, process, repo, task, workflow, file). Within each domain, verbs are specific (list, search, read, install, update, commit, get, respond, start, status, output, cancel, inspect, create, resume, finish, cleanup, guide, advance, patch, write, diff) with no overlapping purposes. The only mild overlap is between git.diff and repo.inspect, but their descriptions clarify that git.diff is Task-specific while repo.inspect is generic, so ambiguity is minimal.
All 29 tools follow the consistent pattern <domain>.<action> with lowercase snake_case actions. The action verbs are uniform across domains (list, search, read, install, update, create, start, etc.), and there are no style mixing or irregular naming conventions. The pattern is predictable and easy to infer.
With 29 tools, the count is on the heavier side, exceeding the typical 3-15 range and even the 25+ threshold that suggests over-scoping. However, the server covers a broad domain (skills, tasks, processes, workflows, files, git, audit, approvals), so each tool appears to serve a specific need. Still, it feels slightly bloated, and some tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., task.resume and process.status overlap in restoring metadata), so a score of 3 is appropriate.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for tasks (create, resume, finish, cancel, cleanup), processes (start, status, output, cancel), workflows (start, list, update, guide, advance), and files (read, search, patch, write). Git operations include commit, diff, and inspect. Skills have list, search, read, install, update. Approvals and audit are covered. Minor gaps include no task.list to enumerate tasks, no process.list to enumerate running processes, and no skill uninstall/delete, but these are non-critical and agents can work around them via existing tools.