Skip to main content
Glama
ofedoren

Foreman MCP Server

by ofedoren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Foreman MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • foreman-mcp-py

      adamruzicka
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server to interact with Foreman (Red Hat Satellite) instances, enabling management of hosts, provisioning, and configuration via natural language.
      1
      -
    • Foreman MCP Server by theforeman

      Foreman MCP Serverofficial

      theforeman
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables interaction with Foreman instances to manage systems through the Model Context Protocol. It provides access to Foreman resources and tools, such as security update reports, directly within AI-powered environments like VSCode and Claude Desktop.
      5
      11
      GPL 3.0

    • Mistral Agent Manager

      Uzbyr
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables management of Mistral AI agents through MCP tools including creating, listing, searching, viewing details, and deleting agents. Integrates with Mistral API to provide agent management capabilities through natural language interactions.
      1
      -
    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

    C2.7/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have some overlap in purpose, particularly around documentation fetching. 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs' and 'Get Foreman DSL Documentation' both retrieve DSL documentation, though one fetches from source and the other from cache. 'call_foreman_api' is distinct as an action tool, while 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs' focuses on API resource documentation. The descriptions help clarify the differences, but the two DSL documentation tools could cause confusion.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions. 'call_foreman_api', 'fetch_foreman_dsl_docs', and 'get_foreman_api_resource_docs' follow a snake_case pattern with verb prefixes, but 'Get Foreman DSL Documentation' uses a different style with spaces and title case. This deviation breaks the pattern and reduces predictability, though the core naming is still readable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on Foreman API interactions and documentation. It covers core operations like calling the API and fetching documentation, though it might feel slightly thin if more advanced actions are needed. The scope is well-defined, and each tool has a clear role, making the count appropriate for the apparent purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool set covers basic API calls and documentation retrieval, but there are notable gaps. It lacks operations for managing Foreman resources (e.g., create, update, delete) and does not provide full CRUD coverage. Agents can work around this by using 'call_foreman_api' for various actions, but the surface is incomplete for comprehensive Foreman management, focusing more on documentation and generic API access.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources