Skip to main content
Glama
hypen-code

MCE — MCP Code Execution

by hypen-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCE — MCP Code Execution

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Docker MCP Server

      cevatkerim
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables LLMs to safely execute code in isolated Docker containers with resource limits and security controls, supporting session management and automatic dependency installation.
      22 PyPI
      MIT

    • Safe Code Sandbox

      evrabhinav
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to run untrusted, model-generated Python code in a locked-down throwaway Docker container with enforced isolation and resource limits. Supports starting, checking, and stopping asynchronous runs while returning structured status reports without exposing the host, network, or Docker controls.
      3
      MIT

    • Sandbox MCP

      AbhiteshPundir
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to safely run commands, install dependencies, test, and modify code inside disposable, policy-enforced Docker sandboxes isolated from the host, returning results and diffs.
      15
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: search/get/list for discovery, execute/submit/cached for running code, and dedicated tools for run management and artifact access. Even execute_code and submit_code are clearly differentiated by synchronous execution vs. persistent receipt submission.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All 11 tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as search_functions, cancel_run, and transform_artifact. The pattern is consistent across discovery, execution, and artifact operations, with no mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: it covers function discovery, code execution variants, run lifecycle, and artifact handling without excess. The count is within the ideal range and each tool serves a clear role.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the main workflow well: discovering functions, executing code, managing runs, and reading/transforming artifacts. A minor gap is the lack of a list_runs tool to enumerate persistent runs; callers must know a receipt ID upfront, which is a small workaround.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources