A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server orchestrating local CLI agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini) for cross-validation, second opinions, and persona-driven prompting.
18
MIT
frontier-orchestrator
Related Servers
Alternatives to frontier-orchestrator
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that orchestrates parallel Claude agent sessions by decomposing natural-language tasks into contract-bound tenants with structured outputs and validation, all running over stdio.5-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables Claude to orchestrate multiple autonomous Claude Code agents working in parallel across different projects, with tools to dispatch, monitor, and manage their progress.640 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that spawns autonomous Claude Code agents in GitHub repos, enabling task delegation with persistent state, multi-step workflows, and job monitoring.4779 npm2Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMulti-model agent orchestration MCP server that enables plan-code-review-deliver pipelines with configurable providers and models.-
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceMCP server for running external coding agents as background tasks inside Claude Code. Supports multiple backends including Codex, Grok, GLM, DeepSeek, and more.7MIT
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: specialist_status checks CLI availability, while delegate_backend, delegate_frontend, and delegate_build target different domains (backend, frontend, build). The descriptions explicitly state boundaries for each delegation tool, so there is no overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
The three delegate tools follow a consistent 'delegate_<domain>' pattern, but specialist_status diverges by using a noun-based name instead of a verb. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for an orchestrator that delegates to three specialist CLIs and checks their availability. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers status checking and delegation for all three specialist domains (Codex, Kimi, Grok Build), including read-only and implementation modes. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues