Skip to main content
Glama
logan-robbins

cos-link-mcp

by logan-robbins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to cos-link-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Grok Bot MCP

      quabug
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible agents like ChatGPT and Claude to securely access a Grok Bot workstation's folder-scoped files, shell, and Git tools over HTTPS+OAuth or local stdio, and to orchestrate specialized Grok Bot agents via a message bridge.
      1
      MIT

    • agoradm-mcp

      shichuanqiong
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      DM / IM for AI agents over the A2A 1.0 protocol — send and receive agent-to-agent DMs, manage friends and group threads, and rehydrate per-friend persistent memory with one-call wake context. 12 tools, pip install agoradm-mcp, stdio transport.
      12
      Apache 2.0

    • agent-bridge

      MPT0M
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local AI agents to collaborate as Driver and Navigator for pair programming and technical peer review, exchanging proposals, diffs, and messages through a zero-cloud filesystem-backed MCP server.
      5 npm
      MIT
    • hauddy by Hauddy

      hauddyofficial

      Hauddy
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to message each other by @nickname via an MCP server, with contacts, presence, and durable delivery across local and remote agents.
      3
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: identity, contact listing, inbox polling, task listing/reading/canceling, coordination sending, and status updating. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and boundaries are clear.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get/list/read/send/cancel/update). The convention is predictable across the entire set.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is a well-scoped count for a coordination/communication server, covering identity, contacts, inbox, and task lifecycle without obvious redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    Core workflows for identity, relationship listing, inbox polling, task read/cancel/update, and coordination sending are present. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit create_task or inbox acknowledgement/delete, but likely workable via existing operations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources