Skip to main content
Glama
mcprating

MCP Rating Gateway

by mcprating
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Rating Gateway

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Multi-MCP Proxy

      kfirtoledo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A flexible MCP proxy server that connects to and routes between multiple backend MCP servers over STDIO or SSE, enabling dynamic management and namespacing of tools.
      111
      MIT

    • relay-mcp

      yujoonko1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables developers to expose any dev tool as a safe, audited MCP server with permission tiers, audit logging, and automatic argument validation.
      MIT

    • dynamic-mcp

      mcpland
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Dynamic MCP server for Node.js enabling runtime tool creation, management, and execution in isolated sandboxes (Docker or Node).
      8
      13 npm
      1
      MIT

    • proxy-mcp

      Rixmerz
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Universal MCP proxy server that discovers, searches, and executes tools across all configured MCP servers from a single entry point.
      7
      -

    • scriptit

      shreyjindal81
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to connect to remote MCP servers once, access their tools through a compact MCP endpoint, pair a CLI inside sandboxes, and create watches that turn command or tool output into pollable structured events.
      2
      -
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 13 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target clearly distinct concerns (connect/disconnect/list/health/audit/usage/sandbox). The only real overlap is mcp_discover vs mcp_recommend, which both surface servers to connect to, and mcp_server_info vs mcp_list_active, which both expose server details.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Every tool uses the same mcp_ prefix and snake_case, giving a strong predictable family. However, it mixes verb_noun forms (list_active, call_tool, gateway_health) with bare-noun names (sandbox, audit, profiles, groups, usage), so the pattern isn't perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    13 tools is well within the ideal range and each maps to a genuine gateway responsibility (discovery, connection lifecycle, sandboxing, auditing, analytics, profiles/groups). Nothing feels padded or missing at the count level.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full server-management lifecycle: discover, connect, disconnect, list, inspect, call, plus sandbox, audit, usage, profiles, and groups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit refresh/reconnect or profile edit/delete semantics), but core workflows are well covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources