Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to plopino

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables sharing artifacts (HTML, files, sites) with password protection and custom branding on your own domain, directly from any AI agent.
    8
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to upload, list, read, and delete static web pages via the Model Context Protocol, with REST API and optional authentication and TTL.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to publish HTML or Markdown to a public URL with a single HTTP POST, automatically converting Markdown to a styled webpage, with no account or setup required.
    7 npm
    1
    MIT

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to publish live, stateful HTML pages over MCP, providing shareable URLs, per-viewer data, and version history.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Send a live, private link to a client from Claude. SnapHost publishes what your assistant builds as a shareable website with a stable URL, updates it in place, restricts viewers by email or password, rolls back bad versions, serves custom domains, and stores form and waitlist data with no backend.
    MIT

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation4/5

The tools share a common purpose of publishing to public URLs, but their descriptions clearly distinguish between publishing content already in hand (publish_page) and publishing local paths or directories (publish_path). The use cases are well delineated, though an agent might need to carefully read the descriptions to avoid misselection when sharing a file from disk.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention (publish_page, publish_path), making the pattern immediately predictable. The naming is perfectly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

With only two tools, the server is on the lean side, but for its narrow scope of publishing content, each tool serves a distinct and necessary role. The count feels appropriate rather than insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The two tools cover the core publishing scenarios: inline content and file/directory paths. While there is no explicit update or delete mechanism, the descriptions mention in-place updates via token, so the surface is reasonably complete for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues