Skip to main content
Glama
ramgml

SourceCraft MCP Server

by ramgml
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to SourceCraft MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • AutomateHub

      Xesderte
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to automate GitHub repository management, issue tracking, and commits using natural language.
      3 npm
      Apache 2.0

    • kula MCP

      A12N4V
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to interact with a local-first git client that provides a knowledge graph of the repository, including graph analysis, issue and proposal management, and architectural review.
      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

    D1.5/5.0

    Scored across 48 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    There are duplicate tools (`_list_organization_repositories` and `list_organization_repositories`) and several similar lifecycle actions (`_create_release` vs `_publish_release`, `_update_pull_request` vs `_publish_pull_request`) that are hard to tell apart. Vague names like `_trigger_workflows` and `_get_cube_logs` further obscure their exact purpose relative to other CI tools.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but the leading underscore prefix is applied inconsistently: some tools like `create_repository`, `list_branches`, and `get_file_tree` have no underscore. The duplicate `_list_organization_repositories` / `list_organization_repositories` pair and odd names like `_get_cube_logs` also break the naming pattern.

    Tool Count2/5

    48 tools is a very large surface for a source-management server, especially when several tools appear duplicative or could be consolidated (`_publish_release` vs `_discard_release`, `_trigger_workflows` vs `_get_workflow`). The scope spans users, orgs, repos, issues, PRs, releases, and CI, which feels heavy rather than focused.

    Completeness3/5

    Major workflows for repositories, issues, pull requests, releases, and CI are covered with CRUD/lifecycle actions in most areas. However, there are notable gaps for a source-management tool: no commit listing/inspection, no branch or tag creation/deletion, and no repository search or org member management beyond listing.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources