MCP Goose Subagents Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP Goose Subagents Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI clients to delegate tasks to autonomous developer teams using Goose CLI subagents, supporting parallel and sequential execution across specialized roles like backend developers, frontend developers, and security auditors.4-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that turns independent AI agents into a coordinated engineering team with shared task board, context, review loop, and enforced plan-implement-review-iterate workflow.24MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that turns multiple AI coding agents into a coordinated team that chats, debates, remembers, audits security, and works in parallel on the same project.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for coordinating multiple AI agents across developers and vendors with a shared job board, per-file locking, and live project context.5AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that lets any AI tool delegate tasks to the OpenCode CLI as a subagent, with multi-session orchestration, event tracking, and task contracts.286 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceThis MCP server enables LLM hosts to plan large tasks and delegate subtasks to specialized local CLI agents, such as Codex and Claude Code, using tools like delegate_task and get_agent_roster.2MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: create_goose_recipe handles recipe creation, delegate_to_subagents initiates task delegation, get_subagent_results retrieves results, and list_active_subagents monitors subagent status. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_goose_recipe, delegate_to_subagents, get_subagent_results, list_active_subagents) with snake_case throughout. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.
With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for managing subagents, covering creation, delegation, result retrieval, and status listing. It is slightly lean but well-scoped for the apparent purpose, though additional tools for updating or deleting recipes might be expected in a more comprehensive set.
The tool set covers core workflows: creating recipes, delegating tasks, getting results, and monitoring status. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for updating or deleting recipes, and no direct control over subagents (e.g., stopping them), but agents can likely work around these with the provided operations.