Skip to main content
Glama
luthersystems

insideout-mcp

by luthersystems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to insideout-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Provision Stack MCP

      TravisLinkey
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Cloud infrastructure provisioning via natural language. Enables deploying production-ready infrastructure on AWS, GCP, Azure, or Oracle with a single prompt.
      12
      4 npm
      MIT
    • Synlake MCP Server by Synlake-ai

      Synlake MCP Serverofficial

      Synlake-ai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to discover, evaluate, and provision cloud infrastructure across AWS, GCP, and Azure with cross-cloud normalization, cost comparisons, and deployable execution kits.
      5
      5 npm
      MIT

    • Cloud Pilot MCP

      vitalemazo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with natural language control over AWS, Azure, GCP, and Alibaba Cloud infrastructure through dynamic API discovery and execution. Supports 51,900+ cloud operations and includes OpenTofu integration for complete infrastructure lifecycle management.
      3
      MIT

    • CloudOps OS MCP

      saihardhikreddy
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Autonomous multi-agent pipeline that analyzes Terraform files for cost, governance, and compliance issues, providing real-time remediation and XAI console for human-in-the-loop approval.
      MIT
    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

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 24 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes tied to specific workflow stages (e.g., convoopen vs convoreply vs tfgenerate). However, convostatus and convoinspect both provide session inspection and could cause confusion, as could tfruns vs tfstatus vs tflogs. Overall, the boundaries are clear with only minor overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a strong prefix convention (convo-, tf-, aws-, gcp-, stack-) combined with descriptive verbs or nouns (open, reply, inspect, status, generate, deploy, destroy, etc.). A few tools like help and submit_feedback break the pattern but are clearly scoped. The naming is largely consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 24 tools, the server is on the higher end but justified by the comprehensive infrastructure lifecycle coverage (conversation, generation, deployment, inspection, monitoring, rollback, feedback). Each tool fills a specific role, though the inspector variants (singular vs batch, AWS vs GCP) add bulk. The count is appropriate for the domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full lifecycle: start/continue conversation, generate Terraform, deploy, destroy, plan, drift check, inspect both AWS and GCP, view logs/status/runs/outputs, manage versions and rollbacks, and submit feedback. No obvious gaps are present; the workflow from design to deployment to monitoring to teardown is fully supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources