firepass-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to firepass-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that provides file operations and Moonshot API-powered tools (reasoning, code review, testing, research, web search, agent) for Kimi K2.5, requiring only a Moonshot API key.3721MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server wrapping Kimi Code CLI (kimi-k2.5) to provide tools for filesystem, shell, web, and agent operations.14127MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceMCP server that runs Kimi K2.7-code as an autonomous coding agent inside a bubblewrap-sandboxed git worktree, returning git diffs of changes for review.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server for file manipulation, code searching, and shell command execution, with optional semantic search using local embeddings.1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA comprehensive MCP server for developers providing file operations, shell execution, git integration, and smart caching to enhance AI-assisted development.117MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn interactive coding agent and MCP server that provides access to various AI models via the Tsinghua University lab proxy API. It enables users to inspect files and execute shell commands within their local directory using models like DeepSeek, GLM, and Qwen.10-
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool maps to a distinct agent role: researcher is read-only analysis, reviewer is read-only code review with structured output, worker can write files and run commands, and trio orchestrates the full pipeline. The descriptions make the boundaries clear despite researcher and reviewer sharing a read-only tool loop.
All tools follow the same firepass_<role> naming convention with single-word role identifiers. The pattern is immediately predictable and there are no mixed styles or vague generic verbs.
Four tools is well-scoped for this server: it exposes exactly the three FirePass agent modes plus the combined trio workflow. Each tool earns its place and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The tool surface covers the full intended workflow: research, implementation, review, and an orchestrated research→implement→review→fix loop. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations for the stated domain.