Skip to main content
Glama
moonlin1213

pet-nest

by moonlin1213
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to pet-nest

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • minibot

      karun99
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Serves a sandboxed terminal bot's tools over stdio so any MCP client can feed, play with, rest and treat the bot, read and write files inside a restricted directory, list directories, and review or undo previous writes.
      10
      MIT

    • agent-hub

      raylison100
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as Claude Desktop or Claude Code to drive the local daemon through stdio, listing agents and sessions, running agents, and reporting costs.
      -

    • agent-effect-gate

      paulchum
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides an MCP stdio interface for AI agents to propose tool calls that are validated against task policy, held for human approval when required, executed in a sandboxed Linux environment, and recorded in an audit log.
      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

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a fairly distinct area: pet_album reads images, nest_status reads state/receipts, pet_adopt creates a pet, and pet_care performs care actions. The two read tools (pet_album, nest_status) could be slightly confused at first glance, but their resource boundaries are clear from the descriptions.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Three of four tools follow a consistent pet_<verb/noun> snake_case pattern (pet_album, pet_adopt, pet_care). nest_status is a minor deviation with a different prefix, but it's still readable and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is on the lean side but each covers a distinct function (read photos, read status, adopt, care), so the count is reasonable for a focused pet-care domain. It is slightly thin but no tool feels redundant.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers create (adopt), read (status, album), and an action (care), but there is no update, rename, release/remove-pet, or configuration operation. Core happy-path workflows work, yet lifecycle operations like managing or removing an existing pet are missing.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources