Skip to main content
Glama
openpoem

spec-score-mcp

by openpoem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to spec-score-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCP Prompt Optimizer

      grandinh
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Automatically analyzes and optimizes AI prompts by calculating clarity scores, detecting risks, asking clarifying questions, and adding domain-specific requirements to improve AI interaction quality.
      1
      MIT

    • code-review-agent

      kestarsheng
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to submit code snippets for review and receive structured quality reports covering correctness, security, performance, maintainability, and best practices.
      1
      -

    • tar-engine

      qingxuantang
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Audits AI agent skills for safety using static, semantic, adversarial, and supply-chain analysis, providing scores and risk flags. Can be run via CLI, CI, or as an MCP tool from Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex.
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • wassden

      tokusumi
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Spec-Driven Development toolkit that transforms LLMs into development agents by providing expert-crafted prompts for generating structured specifications and validating documents across the Requirements → Design → Tasks → Code workflow.
      1
      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

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. spec_score and spec_visualize both score a spec on the same four axes and provide the same analysis, making them nearly redundant. Only spec_compare has a clearly distinct function by comparing two specs, but the other two tools are ambiguous in their differentiation.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a consistent pattern with all tools using the prefix 'spec_' followed by a verb (compare, score, visualize). This makes the purpose of each tool predictable and readable, though the similarity in naming between spec_score and spec_visualize contributes to the disambiguation issue.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on spec evaluation. It covers core functions like scoring, comparing, and visualizing specs, which aligns well with the server's purpose, though the overlap between spec_score and spec_visualize suggests the set could be streamlined without losing functionality.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface is mostly complete for spec evaluation, covering scoring, comparison, and visualization. However, there is a notable gap in tools for editing or updating specs based on the analysis, which could limit workflow coverage. The redundancy between spec_score and spec_visualize also indicates inefficiency rather than a functional gap.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources