fcop-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to fcop-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables external MCP clients like Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and Zed to hand work to a local crew of AI agents that plan, write, check and fix code in a folder, while also acting as an MCP client that can use their tools. Runs locally with user-supplied keys, approval-gated commands, diffable and undoable runs.AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that combines Read+Edit file operations into single tool calls. 80-95% fewer tool calls formulti-file refactoring across Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and more.310 npm3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA multi-tool task agent MCP server with file search, SQLite query, calculator, and report writing tools. Enables Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or Cursor to control the same tools used by the agent, with guardrails for safety.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides 300+ MCP tools for orchestrating AI agents — including swarm coordination, self-learning memory, and task management — enabling MCP clients like Claude Code and Cursor to spawn, coordinate, and learn from specialist agents across sessions.19,558 npm1MIT

Quorusofficial
AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceShared rooms for coding agents from different vendors (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, opencode): 25 MCP tools for room messages, file claims that expire, shared state, memory and moving git branches between machines.252,027 PyPI5MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceExposes specialized agents as MCP tools so users can manage and triage Jira tasks, analyze repositories for health and conventions, generate commit/PR/DevOps patterns, assemble reports, produce slides and infographics, and run semantic search over a knowledge base. Everything is invokable directly from inside a coding session in Claude Code, Cursor, or Claude Desktop.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 25 tools
Most tools target distinct resources or lifecycle transitions, and the descriptions clarify stage-specific actions. However, inspect_task versus read_task and inspect_workspace versus validate_workspace have subtle boundaries that could cause misselection, and the many lifecycle verbs require careful reading.
All tool names use consistent snake_case verb_noun phrasing, such as create_task, inspect_family, write_review, and mark_human_approved. The convention is predictable across lifecycle operations, artifact operations, and workspace operations.
Twenty-five tools is heavy for the apparent scope, sitting at the upper boundary before the surface feels excessive. The complex protocol justifies many lifecycle operations, but several read/inspect/list variants push the set beyond an ideal well-scoped size.
The surface covers workspace setup and validation, full task lifecycle transitions, branch/family convergence, reports, reviews, issues, and human approval evidence. Minor gaps remain, notably no read_issue equivalent despite write_issue and list_issues, but core workflows are otherwise covered.