Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to iTerm MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to interact with iTerm2 terminals, allowing creation and management of terminal sessions, command execution, and reading terminal output.
      5
      16 npm
      14
      ISC
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A server that enables AI assistants to execute terminal commands and retrieve outputs via the Model Context Protocol (MCP).
      3
      27
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that provides programmatic access to the Windows terminal, enabling AI models to interact with the Windows command line through standardized tools for writing commands, reading output, and sending control signals.
      3
      6 npm
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for controlling iTerm2 terminal sessions, enabling screen reading, command execution, keystroke sending, and session management through natural language.
      1
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for terminal control enabling AI to manage terminal sessions via iTerm2 or tmux, with features like screen reading, keyboard/mouse input, and background execution.
      9
      14 npm
      22
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server enabling AI agents to interact with terminal applications through structured Terminal State Tree representation. Works with any AI assistant that supports the Model Context Protocol.
      41 npm
      19
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: reading output, sending control characters, and writing text/commands. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool for each operation.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (read_terminal_output, send_control_character, write_to_terminal). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout with clear action-object pairs.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels minimal but covers core terminal interactions. For a terminal control server, this is borderline thin, as additional operations like listing sessions or managing tabs might be expected, but it's not severely lacking.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover essential terminal operations: reading, writing, and sending control signals. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for managing multiple terminals or sessions, but the core workflow for interacting with an active terminal is well-supported without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues