Skip to main content
Glama
gabyic

AgentDock MCP Harness

by gabyic

Related Servers

Alternatives to AgentDock MCP Harness

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      521 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Secure 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.
      8
      6
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Turns ChatGPT web into a local coding agent, enabling file edits, shell commands, Git operations, patches, and process management through 40+ MCP tools.
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 19 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool is scoped to a distinct resource and action. Though process.cancel and task.cancel overlap in stopping processes, their descriptions clearly differentiate targeting a single process versus an entire task, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent domain.action pattern using lower_snake_case (e.g., task.create, file.read, approval.respond). The verb is always an imperative or descriptive action, and the dot prefix reliably indicates the resource domain, making the naming highly predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 19 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the variety of concerns (processes, tasks, files, git, audit, approvals) justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct operation without obvious redundancy, so it feels reasonably scoped rather than bloated.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers task lifecycle, file operations, git commit/diff, process management, audit, and approvals. However, there is no task.list or task.get endpoint to enumerate or query tasks by state; agents must know task IDs in advance, which is a notable gap in the otherwise comprehensive workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues