Skip to main content
Glama
mfbaig35r

procurement-graph

by mfbaig35r
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to procurement-graph

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • WorkGraph

      AlexWangzhixin
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to query a local drill-down work map and knowledge graph, supporting work map, project context, related projects, reuse finding, search, and graph statistics, all read-only.
      Apache 2.0

    • code-graph

      osadan
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables querying cross-repo code dependencies, HTTP routes, database tables, and queues via an MCP server using Cypher queries.
      -

    • Reachable

      DevAnuragT
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes the code-and-dependency graph over MCP so clients can list and explain CVE findings from public endpoints, find supply-chain hubs, recommend and plan upgrades, verify a fix in a rebuilt scratch graph, and propose a draft fix PR. Queries are read-only and no tool executes an action.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 16 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct concept or action: ordering, feasibility, analysis details, artifact examples, deliverables, dependencies, etc. The descriptions clearly differentiate them, and there is no overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., build_order, list_analyses, get_dependencies). The exceptions like feasible_now and data_gap_analysis still align with adjective_noun, maintaining overall consistency.

    Tool Count5/5

    The 16 tools cover the full range of operations expected for a procurement knowledge graph: listing, getting details, dependency analysis, feasibility checks, and phase browsing. Neither too few nor too many for the domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for a read-only catalog: listing all node types, fetching full specs, exploring dependencies both upstream and downstream, ordering builds, and assessing feasibility. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources