All-in-MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to All-in-MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA read-only FastMCP server for academic research that lets agents search papers, inspect metadata, follow citation graphs, generate BibTeX, and read full texts of open-access PDFs via semantic scholar, OpenAlex, arXiv, DBLP, and Crossref.6-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables searching and retrieving security conference papers from major venues (S&P, USENIX, CCS, NDSS, etc.) using natural language queries through the MCP protocol.10 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables users to search and retrieve academic paper metadata, author profiles, citation and reference networks, snippets, and paper recommendations through a FastMCP interface.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables users to search academic literature, explore citation and reference networks, retrieve detailed paper and author metadata, and generate paper recommendations through a FastMCP interface.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for searching, retrieving, and subscribing to academic papers across security, ML, NLP, CV, and systems venues via 12 tools.16152 npm4MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables users to search academic papers, explore citation and reference networks, retrieve author profiles and publications, and generate paper recommendations through a structured MCP interface.-
TDQS
Scored across 7 tools
The tools are split into two distinct domains (academic papers and GitHub), but within the GitHub group, three tools lack descriptions and are ambiguously named (e.g., getRepoAllDirectories vs getRepoDirectories). The apaper tools are well-described and distinct.
Tool names follow two different conventions: snake_case with 'apaper_' prefix for academic tools, and camelCase with 'github-repo-mcp_' prefix for GitHub tools. This inconsistency makes it harder for an agent to predict naming patterns.
The total of 7 tools is reasonable, but the server tries to cover two unrelated domains with only a few tools each. The academic part (~4 tools) is appropriately scoped, while the GitHub part (3 tools) feels marginal for a repository toolset.
The academic paper tools cover search and download, which is decent. However, the GitHub tools only provide read operations (get directories and file) with no support for listing repositories, searching code, or any write actions, leaving significant gaps for typical repository interactions.