eva-custom-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to eva-custom-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables full management of WikiJS instances, supporting operations like page creation, searching, and updating. It also provides tools for knowledge graph exploration, content summarization, and retrieval of wiki statistics.9 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for Wiki.js projects that enables full-text search, page retrieval, and page management capabilities. It allows LLMs to interact with wiki content through specialized tools for searching, listing, and creating pages.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that provides tools to add to, search, and manage a wiki knowledge base, enabling AI chat tools to contribute and retrieve information from the wiki via natural language prompts.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for Wiki.js integration, enabling AI assistants to create, read, update, delete, search, and move wiki pages via natural language.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server to query a Git-hosted Wiki, offering tools to list, search, and read Markdown documents via Codex or VS Code.MIT
- FlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for integrating KiraHub with Claude Code. Provides tools for task management, epic management, working notes, project knowledge, and plan wiki integration.28-
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have overlapping purposes—both retrieve a glossary article's content, differing mainly in lookup mechanism (by slug/URL vs. term resolution). An agent could easily be unsure which to pick for a given query, since both ultimately return article content.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (glossary_article_get, glossary_search), sharing the 'glossary' prefix. The verbs 'get' and 'search' differ slightly in style but remain predictable and readable.
At only 2 tools, the surface is thin for a server dedicated to a glossary domain. It's borderline—enough for basic read access but minimal for any meaningful workflow beyond retrieval.
The surface only supports reading/searching glossary articles. There is no create, update, or delete capability, and no listing endpoint. It's a read-only retrieval server with noticeable gaps relative to typical content management expectations.