Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to should-i-use

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that checks npm and PyPI package health, providing maintenance signals, version info, CVE counts, and alternative suggestions.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that verifies npm and PyPI packages before installation, checking for existence, known vulnerabilities, OpenSSF scorecard, and typosquatting, returning an ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK verdict.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides cross-validated npm dependency fitness verdicts, including deprecation, malicious detection, and safe migration target inference.
      2
      36 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server providing npm registry search, package details, dependency auditing, bundle size estimation, and package comparison tools for AI agents.
      5
      25 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A comprehensive MCP server for checking package versions and rating package quality across Python (PyPI), JavaScript/TypeScript (npm), Dart (pub.dev), and Rust (crates.io) ecosystems.
      5
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct role: discovering libraries for a task (pick_library), evaluating a known library (should_i_use), exploring alternatives (alternatives), getting usage snippets (how_do_i), and finding documentation (docs_link). There is no overlap in purpose or input type.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names are a mix of verb phrases (pick_library, how_do_i), noun phrases (alternatives, docs_link), and a sentence-like phrase (should_i_use). While all lowercase with underscores, the lack of a consistent syntactic pattern makes the naming unpredictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear, distinct function. The count falls comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused toolkit.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the complete library decision workflow: discovering candidates, evaluating a library, comparing alternatives, obtaining usage code, and accessing official docs. There are no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues