Skip to main content
Glama
oper-stack

@operstack/mcp

Official
by oper-stack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to @operstack/mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • automatelab-ai-seo by AutomateLab-tech

      automatelab-ai-seoofficial

      AutomateLab-tech
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Vendor-agnostic MCP server that audits, scores, and rewrites web pages for AI-citation eligibility. No API keys. No registration. Works in Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf, VS Code (Copilot / Continue), and any client that speaks the Model Context Protocol.
      20
      58 npm
      3
      MIT

    • maxaeo-ai-visibility-mcp

      maxaeo
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to check whether a public website is crawlable, understandable, and ready for AI search workflows through local-only audits of robots.txt, sitemaps, metadata, and llms.txt.
      3
      45 npm
      1
      MIT

    • growth-mcp

      abhi725
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Open-source MCP server that audits websites for AI search readiness, providing deterministic scoring (0-100) and prioritized fix lists for metrics like JSON-LD, llms.txt, heading hierarchy, and AI crawler access.
      1
      MIT

    • librecrawl-technical-seo-audit

      adityaarsharma
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Open-source technical SEO crawler MCP server built on LibreCrawl. Runs full audits inside Claude, Cursor, or Codex — 50+ checks (hreflang, schema.org, security headers, WAF detection on 200-OK pages), chunked-progressive engine for large sites, ephemeral by design (server forgets every audit after download).
      39
      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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a fairly distinct purpose: single-site audit, multi-site comparison, llms.txt validation, and local content gates. However, compare_sites is essentially a multi-site extension of audit_site, and check_llms_txt overlaps with the AEO/GEO portion of audit_site, so an agent could occasionally waver between them despite the clarifying descriptions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All four tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: compare_sites, audit_site, check_llms_txt, run_gates. The convention is predictable throughout with no style mixing.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a site-measurement server, and each earns its place. It leans slightly thin, since there is no tool for remediation or reporting beyond the core diagnostics.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core diagnostic lifecycle: single-site audit, competitor comparison, a specific llms.txt check, and local corpus gates. Minor gaps remain—no historical tracking, export/reporting, or standalone robots/schema checks—but agents can work around these for the stated purpose.

    Resources