A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceAn MCP server that turns your TrueNAS instance into tools, letting you manage disks, pools, apps, VMs, shares, and more from any MCP client.
MIT
nasbridge
by maverick0628
Related Servers
Alternatives to nasbridge
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for TrueNAS Scale that enables AI assistants to manage storage pools, datasets, apps, VMs, snapshots, and more via the native WebSocket API.59MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server for TrueNAS SCALE that enables read-first management of storage, system, sharing, and virtualization resources with per-user API key authentication, and optional write operations.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAI-powered MCP server for TrueNAS SCALE storage operations with governance and safety features, enabling management of pools, datasets, snapshots, disks, alerts, and services.25MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets Claude monitor and manage a TrueNAS box in plain English. It is deliberately read-only, providing tools to check alerts, storage pools, snapshots, services, and more.18MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables Claude Desktop and other MCP clients to interact with TrueNAS Core systems through the TrueNAS API, supporting user management, storage operations, sharing, and snapshot creation.2059,702 PyPI31MIT
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
There is only one tool in the set, so there can be no confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose and usage are clearly described, making it unambiguous to an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
With only one tool named 'truenas', there is no inconsistency in naming conventions. The name is a clear, lowercase identifier, even though it does not follow a verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool is far too few for the broad scope of managing a TrueNAS system. This forces agents to use a hierarchical dispatcher with 278 actions, which is inefficient and difficult to navigate compared to a proper tool set.
Completeness3/5
The tool lists categories covering many core NAS areas, but user management is notably absent from the listed categories. While 278 actions likely provide extensive coverage, the single-dispatch design obscures the true completeness and creates potential gaps.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues