Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to micro-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local MCP clients to run Sailfish OS device, SDK, OBS, and Android/AppSupport development workflows via typed tools for SSH access, screenshots, touch injection, builds, logs, services, and repository checks.
      35
      BSD Zero Clause
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables secure discovery and invocation of sandboxed filesystem, repository inspection, and utility tools through a unified MCP client with schema validation, timeouts, and execution traces.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables building and running MCP servers from a single executable, with shared daemons, concurrency controls, retries, caching, security, and OpenAPI integration.
      23 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      D
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables controlled local developer operations including file and process management, shell execution, SSH, WSL, Docker, Git, browser and desktop automation, media processing, and asynchronous jobs through MCP.
      146
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 68 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are scoped to a distinct resource—domains, members, schedules, backups, retention, users—and the plural-list vs singular-action naming helps separate reads from mutations. A few generic status/logs/usage tools overlap in scope, but their descriptions clearly distinguish project status, account usage, platform status, and local runner logs.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the micro_ prefix and snake_case, and mutations mostly follow a consistent resource_action pattern such as domain_add, member_remove, and backup_restore. Minor deviations like bare-verb tools (doctor, remix, pull, rollback) and noun-only read tools keep it from being perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count1/5

    68 tools is far beyond the well-scoped 3-15 range and is an extreme surface for a single MCP server, even for a broad platform. This will tax context windows and make tool discovery harder; several status, usage, and billing tools could likely be consolidated.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers most lifecycle operations across domains, members, invitations, schedules, backups, deployments, users, retention, and platform state, with create/read/update/delete coverage for major resources. Minor gaps remain—no file delete, no product delete/archive, no record create/update—so it is not a perfect 5.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues