Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to RSAP MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables users to control CSI ETABS structural engineering software through Claude, allowing model creation, status checks, and engineering checks via COM automation.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Connects Claude to a running Autodesk Civil 3D instance via COM automation to perform drawing, surface, alignment, COGO point, line, and corridor operations.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Claude to directly control Midas Civil NX for bridge structural analysis, allowing users to model, apply loads, and perform analysis through natural language descriptions.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables programmatic control of AutoCAD through COM automation, allowing natural language commands to create structures, manage layers, and manipulate entities via MCP clients like Claude.
      62
      Apache 2.0
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional that enables AI assistants to read model data, loads, and analysis results from an open Robot session, with optional write and calculation tools.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables users to control AutoCAD, GstarCAD, or ZWCAD through natural language via Claude Desktop. It provides tools for drawing geometric shapes, adding text and dimensions, and managing CAD files using the Windows COM interface.
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 35 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: define/create/assign/query are cleanly separated, and singular vs. bulk variants (e.g., add_node vs. add_nodes) are clearly named. Even similar results tools (bar_forces vs. bar_force_envelope) differ in purpose and are unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All tools share the 'rsap_' prefix and snake_case, but the verb-noun pattern is not universal: results tools (bar_forces, node_displacement, node_reaction, results_summary) omit the verb, while most others use verb_first (add_, list_, define_). This mixed convention is readable but not fully predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    35 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but the domain (full structural analysis lifecycle) justifies the breadth. The count feels heavy yet each tool covers a distinct need; a smaller set would require awkward multi-purpose tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers the core workflow: project management, geometry (nodes/bars), properties, supports, loads, analysis, and results. Notable gaps exist for shell/plate modeling (despite project types including shell) and there are no update/edit tools for existing objects, but the main frame/bar analysis pathway is complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues