A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceLocal MCP server for Claude Code providing persistent memory, task planning, and agent coordination with full transparency and no network calls.
2
MIT
coding-os
by kouroshez
Related Servers
Alternatives to coding-os
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA 68-tool MCP server providing persistent memory, error tracking, decision logging, task orchestration, and multi-modal AI generation for coding agents like OpenCode and Claude Code.MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for sharing source-backed engineering memory across AI coding clients like Cursor and VS Code.301MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for orchestrating coding tasks with frontier-model planning and local execution, enabling manifest validation, plan submission, status checks, cancellation, and report retrieval through Claude Code.6MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that exposes local agents as tools for Claude Code, enabling capabilities in quant, trading, news, reports, robotics, Notion, and FreeCAD.25 npm1-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceThis MCP server enables remote control and management of Claude Code agents, allowing you to execute missions, configure agent personalities, and integrate with other MCP tools.716 npm1MIT
TDQS
B3/5.0
Scored across 89 tools
Disambiguation2/5
Several tool clusters have overlapping purposes: cos_graph_query vs cos_graph_search vs cos_graph_resolve, cos_search vs cos_doc_search vs cos_task_search, cos_task_pick vs cos_task_claim_next, and cos_supervise vs cos_dispatch_formula. Descriptions attempt to differentiate boundaries, but with 89 tools an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools consistently use the cos_ prefix and snake_case, which makes the set predictable at the casing level. However, the underlying convention mixes verb_noun (cos_task_create) with noun phrases (cos_graph_contracts, cos_task_by_filter, cos_health), so it is not a perfectly uniform pattern.
Tool Count1/5
89 tools is far beyond the recommended 3-15 range and represents an extreme mismatch for a single server. The surface is fragmented across graph analysis, task management, memory, retrieval, metrics, and supervision, making discovery and selection costly.
Completeness4/5
The server covers task lifecycle, graph exploration, memory learning, retrieval quality, metrics, and supervision with extensive operations. Minor gaps exist, such as explicit documentation authoring or task deletion, but core workflows for the stated coding-OS domain are largely complete.
Maintenance
ActivityActive
ResponsivenessWithin a week