F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceAn MCP server that enables graph database interactions with Neo4j, allowing users to access and manipulate graph data through natural language commands.
-
@littlebigbrain/mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to @littlebigbrain/mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that connects AI assistants to the Data Graphs knowledge graph platform, enabling natural language search, exploration, and querying of graph data.6 npm-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides a code graph querying and visualization MCP server, enabling users to search, trace, and describe code components, overlay diffs, and explore architecture through natural language.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server for TheBrain 15 that enables semantic search, graph traversal, and structured writing to a personal knowledge base via its local API. It provides tools to read and write thoughts, notes, links, and tags, with optional local embeddings for meaning-based search.1779 npm8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that builds a knowledge graph from code and text documents, enabling Q\&A and implementation planning via tools like graph_create, graph_plan, and graph_query.7MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI-powered exploration of RDF data and SPARQL querying via RDF4J. It provides tools for executing queries, searching knowledge graph resources, and retrieving schema summaries.131MIT
TDQS
A4/5.0
Scored across 10 tools
Disambiguation4/5
The read tools (lbb_inspect, lbb_query) and the write/schema tools (lbb_commit, lbb_configure, lbb_rdf) have subtly overlapping scopes, but the descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other (e.g. 'Query asserted RDF/OWL axioms separately with lbb_query') to steer selection. The embeddings surface is split across three tools (lbb_embeddings read, lbb_embeddings_manage write, lbb_embeddings_delete), which is defensible but adds boundary checks. Most tools are distinct; only a couple require careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share a consistent lbb_ prefix and readable noun-oriented names. The only deviation is the noun_verb form of lbb_embeddings_manage and lbb_embeddings_delete versus bare nouns elsewhere, but this is a minor, predictable deviation. No camelCase/snake_case mixing.
Tool Count4/5
Ten tools is well within a reasonable range for a graph/knowledge-base server. However, several tools are large multi-action umbrellas (lbb_inspect lists 10 actions, lbb_query has 5 modes), so the effective surface is heavier than the raw count suggests. Still appropriately scoped.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers reads, writes, retraction, schema/ontology management, RDF import, embeddings, and eval workflows, which is strong lifecycle coverage. Gaps exist: RDF axiom deletion is explicitly unsupported, and there is no explicit graph create/delete tool despite graphs appearing as a resource. Agents can work around these via versioned graphs.
Maintenance
ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues