Skip to main content
Glama
maxwellaguiarsilva

project-mcp-tools

by maxwellaguiarsilva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to project-mcp-tools

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-tool-framework

      tanghui2
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server framework enabling standardized tool registration, discovery, and invocation over JSON-RPC 2.0, with support for InProcess, SSE, and WebSocket transports, plus built-in tools such as calculator, text processor, and JSON formatter.
      MIT

    • Berry MCP Server

      richinex
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A universal framework for creating and deploying custom Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool servers with decorator-based tool registration, supporting multiple transports and automatic JSON schema generation for AI assistants.
      1
      MIT

    • Agent Factory MCP

      utenadev
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      A universal MCP server that automatically discovers and registers CLI tools as AI-powered agents with persona configuration, enabling any CLI tool to be used as an MCP tool.
      4
      1
      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

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 12 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: git operations, image generation/description, context reporting, and one-off converters do not overlap. An agent should not confound any pair of these tools.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (create_image, list_tools), some are domain-prefixed (git_quick_upload, python_clear), and some are noun phrases (session_context_usage, keyboard_notes_converter). The names are readable, but future tool names are not predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Twelve tools is a reasonable count and none of the tools feels redundant. The set is a broad utility grab-bag, so it is slightly less tightly scoped than a focused server, but the count itself is appropriate.

    Completeness3/5

    The git and image sub-areas have practical coverage, and individual utilities are self-contained, but the set has no definable single domain against which to judge completeness. An agent cannot infer what project operations the server supports because the tools are an ad hoc collection rather than a coherent surface.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources