Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Devici MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables LLM clients to interact with ThreatConnect v3 for case management and threat intelligence, providing typed tools for creating/updating cases, indicators, and artifacts while handling HMAC authentication and API quirks.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes the Tenable Identity Exposure (TIE) REST API as tools for LLM clients, enabling queries on security profiles, activity timelines, AD objects, and more.
      15
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides broad, typed access to the ftrack Studio production-tracking API for LLM agents via 28 tools, including generic CRUD and convenience operations for projects, tasks, notes, and more.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes every operation from the meloQA v1 API as MCP tools, enabling LLM clients to read and manage meloQA projects, test cases, cycles, executions, bugs, links, and reference data.
      83
      11 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 25 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools are organized around specific resources (collections, threat models, components, mitigations, teams, threats, users) and actions (create, get, invite, search), with clear boundaries between them. For example, get_threat and get_threat_model target different entities, and paginated list tools are distinguished from single-item retrieval tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout. All tools use snake_case with clear verbs like 'create', 'get', 'invite', or 'search' followed by a noun or noun phrase (e.g., 'create_collection', 'get_components_by_canvas'). There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 25 tools, the count feels heavy and borderline excessive for the apparent scope of a threat modeling and security management server. While the tools cover many resources, the high number suggests potential over-fragmentation, such as having separate tools for paginated lists and single-item retrieval for each resource, which could overwhelm agents or lead to unnecessary complexity in tool selection.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface is largely complete for the domain of threat modeling and security management, covering CRUD operations for key resources like collections, threat models, components, mitigations, teams, threats, and users. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update or delete operations for most resources (only create and get are present), but agents can likely work around this with existing tools for core workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessSyncing