Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Charles MCP Server

Charles MCP Server

by heizaheiza
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Charles MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Charles MCP Server

      ExQA
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to connect to Charles Proxy for live and historical traffic analysis, summary-first insights, request detail inspection, and data-driven mock creation via Map Local/Remote.
      47
      MIT

    • proxypilot

      hakanor
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      HTTP(S) and WebSocket debugging proxy, like Proxyman or Charles, that AI agents drive over MCP: summarize captured traffic, read requests with secrets masked, diff a working request against a failing one, mock responses, set breakpoints and throttle the network.
      20
      1
      MIT

    • Charles-Mcp

      Xiao7XS
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to read, decode, and analyze traffic captured by Charles Proxy 5.2.2, covering live capture, saved session files, and body decoding across JSON, compressed, form, multipart, protobuf, and WebSocket payloads. It also supports reverse-engineering workflows that replay requests and mutate fields to determine which signature, timestamp, or token parameters the server actually enforces.
      1
      GPL 3.0
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 18 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    There is significant overlap between tools for live vs. recorded traffic analysis, with multiple tools serving similar purposes but for different contexts (e.g., query_live_capture_entries vs. query_recorded_traffic, peek_live_capture vs. read_live_capture). However, descriptions help clarify the distinctions, such as cursor behavior and context-specific use cases, preventing complete confusion.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verb-noun combinations (e.g., analyze_recorded_traffic, get_traffic_entry_detail). Minor deviations exist, such as 'filter_func' being less descriptive and 'charles_status' not fully adhering to the verb-noun structure, but overall naming is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 18 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive Charles proxy server covering live capture, recorded traffic analysis, session management, and configuration. It avoids being excessive (under 25) and provides a well-scoped set for the domain, though some tools could potentially be consolidated.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set offers complete coverage for Charles proxy operations, including starting/stopping live captures, querying and analyzing both live and recorded traffic, drilling into details, managing sessions and recordings, and configuring throttling and resets. No obvious gaps exist; agents can perform full lifecycle tasks from capture to inspection and management.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessWithin a week

    Resources