Skip to main content
Glama
rajgurung

engineering-standards

by rajgurung
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Related Servers

Alternatives to engineering-standards

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • ForgeCraft

      jghiringhelli
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides a quality framework and enforceable conventions for AI coding assistants, ensuring code quality, environment hygiene, and project standards across multiple AI tools.
      44 npm
      3
      -

    • montology

      shinyobjectz
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enforces design systems and vocabulary via ontology checks, candidate scanning, linting, and structural search across repositories.
      7
      44
      Apache 2.0
    • corbat by corbat-tech

      corbatofficial

      corbat-tech
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Policy and quality engine for AI coding agents that enforces team coding standards and provides validation gates for agent-assisted software delivery.
      7
      32 npm
      4
      MIT

    • sdlc-mcp

      Osucha
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to enforce a software delivery standard by validating artifacts against declarative rules, providing templates, glossary terms, and pass/fail verdicts with actionable blockers.
      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

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_standard retrieves documentation, review_branch_name and review_commit_message validate specific artifacts, and staff_engineer_review runs a workflow checklist. No two tools overlap or could cause misselection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_standard, review_branch_name, review_commit_message), but staff_engineer_review breaks the pattern by leading with a noun and using 'review' as a noun rather than a verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriately scoped for a standards server. Each tool earns its place for retrieval, validation, and checklist support without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core needs of retrieving standards and validating branch names and commit messages, plus a staff engineer review checklist. Minor gaps exist like PR title validation or code style checks, but agents can retrieve standards and apply them manually, so no severe dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources