Skip to main content
Glama
mpasternak

ojs-mcp

by mpasternak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to ojs-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • openproject-mcp

      OliverRhyme
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes the OpenProject REST API as MCP tools for project management, including creating and managing projects, work packages, relations, attachments, users, notifications, watchers, boards, and reference data.
      37
      25 npm
      MIT

    • openalex-mcp

      ckgerteis
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for the OpenAlex scholarly graph API, enabling searches for authors, works, institutions, sources, and citation data. Supports optional query logging with hash-chained receipts.
      8
      1
      MIT

    • Wanatux Labs MCP

      jayala-wt
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to query the Open Science Framework for public research project metadata, abstracts, and component listings using OSF project IDs or URLs.
      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

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 17 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: journals, submissions, publications, files, reviews, issues, sections, users, reviewers, stats, and DOIs are clearly separated. The only potential overlap (get_submission vs get_publication) is well-defined as different granularities of the same object.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_*, get_*, search_* for actions, with the exceptions of whoami (a standard idiom) and the two *_stats nouns, which are still predictable. No mixed conventions.

    Tool Count5/5

    17 tools is appropriate for a complex domain like OJS, covering journal management, submissions, publications, files, reviews, issues, users, reviewers, statistics, and DOIs. Each tool earns its place, and the set is neither too thin nor bloated.

    Completeness3/5

    The read side is thorough (listing, fetching, searching, stats), but there are no dedicated create/update/delete tools for submissions, issues, sections, or users. Write operations are only possible via the generic ojs_request tool, which requires a special flag and is not a first-class tool, leaving a notable gap for full lifecycle management.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources