Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to homelab-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables read-only observability of a Linux host via MCP, exposing allowlisted systemd, docker, nginx, logs, disk, and cert info without shell access.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Read-only MCP server to inspect allowlisted Docker containers, systemd services, JSONL logs, and HTTP health endpoints without arbitrary shell access.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Lets MCP clients (Claude Code, Claude Desktop) inspect a Linux home server's health over the network: uptime, load, memory, disk, Docker containers, systemd services, journal errors, and listening ports. Read-only, bearer-token secured.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A secure, local-first MCP server for read-only inspection and troubleshooting of development environments, exposing narrow, typed, auditable capabilities for repository inspection, log summarization, Docker review, and security scanning without granting unrestricted machine access.
      8
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct homelab diagnostic or incident-response action, with no true duplicates. The incident workflow tools (evidence_snapshot, incident_report, propose_remediation) are separated by clear read-only, hypothesis, and proposal boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case, which keeps the set readable and predictable. However, the pattern is not uniformly verb_noun; many tools are noun-only or noun_phrase, so it is mostly consistent with minor deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Ten tools is well-scoped for a homelab read-only diagnostic and incident-response server. Each tool earns its place without obvious redundancy or missing core actions.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers disk, memory, services, Docker, logs, uptime, health, evidence capture, incident reporting, and remediation proposals. Minor gaps remain, such as CPU/load, network, or process-level diagnostics, but the core read-only incident workflow is complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues