Skip to main content
Glama
osick

SAIR MCP Server

by osick
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to SAIR MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • codabench-mcp

      harshitAgr
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for Codabench REST API that enables AI agents to drive a full participant ML-benchmark workflow: discover competitions, download data, submit, poll, and read leaderboards.
      16
      MIT

    • mcp_local_server

      sarthakdeshmukh0770-jpg
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A lightweight local MCP server built with FastMCP for exposing custom tools to MCP-compatible clients. Enables local development and testing of MCP tools and resources.
      1
      -

    • API Testing MCP

      cocaxcode
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A lightweight, local-first MCP server for executing HTTP requests and managing API collections and environments without cloud dependencies. It enables testing APIs, handling authentication, and importing OpenAPI specifications directly within MCP-compatible workflows.
      42
      100 npm
      8
      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

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 48 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct, each targeting specific resources and actions. However, the high number of tools (48) introduces some complexity, and a few like 'get_my_submission' vs 'get_submission_by_id' could cause minor confusion despite different purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names consistently follow the `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (e.g., create_cheatsheet, list_playground_runs). The verbs are appropriately descriptive (create, get, list, delete, update, submit, etc.), and there is no mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 48 tools, the set is significantly larger than the recommended 3-15 range, indicating over-scoping. While the domain is broad, many operations could be consolidated, and the sheer volume risks overwhelming agents.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers CRUD operations for core resources (cheatsheets, solver templates, custom problems, contributor network items) and key workflows (competition submissions, playground runs). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a tool to list all runs across competitions, but the set is largely complete for its intended domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources