Skip to main content
Glama
ozwei

LM Studio MCP Bridge

by ozwei

Related Servers

Alternatives to LM Studio MCP Bridge

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that connects LLM agents to a local LM Studio instance, enabling model management, OpenAI-compatible chat completions, text completions, and embeddings through a set of tools.
      9
      1
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables seamless integration between Ollama's local LLM models and MCP-compatible applications, supporting model management and chat interactions.
      13
      758 npm
      170
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Unified MCP server for managing local model runtimes (Ollama, LM Studio, etc.), enabling provider-agnostic discovery, lifecycle management, hardware-fit checks, and delegated inference.
      16
      18 npm
      Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International

    TDQS

    C2.4/5.0

    Scored across 28 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: get_system_health, check_server_status, and lms_status all report health status; list_local_models, lms_ls, and lms_ps all list models in different forms. The distinction between query_local_llm and query_local_llm_stateful is clear but other boundaries (e.g., lms_server_control vs lms_runtime_control) are fuzzy.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming conventions are mixed: most tools use snake_case (get_system_health, query_local_llm), but a subset uses an lms_ prefix (lms_status, lms_ps, lms_get). Verb choices vary inconsistently across similar actions (list vs get vs check vs read), and the async variant `analyze_local_image_async` does not follow a systematic pattern.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 28 tools, the set is bloated. Many tools duplicate functionality or could be consolidated (e.g., multiple health check tools, multiple model listing tools). A more streamlined set of around 15-18 core tools would better align with the bridge's purpose.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers core workflows: model lifecycle, inference, vision, RAG, embeddings, file access, and network mesh. However, there are notable gaps such as no explicit tool to delete/unload models (only load/unload by model instance) and no way to cancel or manage background tasks beyond checking status. The redundancy in health/status commands also creates confusion but not missing functionality.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues