Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to winadmin-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to operate and monitor Windows workspaces through native tools for filesystem operations, PowerShell execution, background tasks, Windows services, GPU telemetry, PDF generation, and a built-in web gateway/dashboard.
      68 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients to securely control and interact with a local Windows machine through 218 configurable tools for files, Git, processes, Windows UI, browser automation, WSL, Office, recovery, skills, and child MCP servers.
      2 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to safely perform file operations, run terminal sessions, manage processes, search content, and inspect Git repositories on a local Windows machine under configurable permission and audit controls.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to perform comprehensive Windows system health diagnostics, security checks, developer workflows, and maintenance tasks via 85 tools with actionable recommendations, over MCP and OpenAI-compatible HTTP.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A lightweight server that enables AI agents to interact with the Windows operating system, allowing for file navigation, application control, UI interaction, and QA testing through various tools.
      9,021
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables an AI agent to inspect and operate a remote Windows machine over a private tailnet, listing and reading files, transferring and mutating them within a configured sandbox root, capturing screenshots, and — only when explicitly double-opted-in — executing commands and sending keystrokes. It runs self-hosted with no third-party client or vendor cloud in the session path, and reports its live policy rather than asserting its own safety.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one lists pending destructive actions and the other confirms a specific action by confirmation_id. There is no overlap in action or resource, so an agent can easily choose between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use snake_case and follow a predictable verb_noun style (list_pending, confirm_action). No mixed casing or inconsistent verb conventions are present.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is borderline thin for an admin approval workflow, even though each tool has a distinct purpose. The set would feel better scoped with at least one additional operation such as reject or cancel.

    Completeness2/5

    The surface covers listing pending actions and confirming them, but omits rejecting/denying, canceling, retrieving details, and viewing history. These are significant gaps for a safe destructive-action approval workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues