Skip to main content
Glama
rangogamedev

codecks-mcp

by rangogamedev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to codecks-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • codecks-mcp

      rangogamedev
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      MCP server for Codecks project management, providing 38 tools to manage cards, decks, milestones, tags, and workflows via the Model Context Protocol.
      MIT

    • Codex Gemini MCP

      donghae0414
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A TypeScript-based MCP server that provides tools to interact with local Codex and Gemini CLIs via stdio transport. It enables users to execute prompts through the ask_codex and ask_gemini tools, supporting custom models and timeout configurations.
      1
      3 npm
      6
      MIT

    • Mi MCP Server

      RoyserVillanueva
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A TypeScript-based MCP server that connects with MCP clients like Claude, VS Code, and Cursor, providing tools like echo, sum, time, and customizable prompts.
      12 npm
      MIT

    • ts-mcp-server

      AndyLiner13
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A lightweight MCP server that provides 40 tools for TypeScript/JavaScript refactoring and code intelligence, directly mapping to TypeScript's tsserver protocol commands for accurate structural changes and workspace analysis.
      40
      41 npm
      3
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 38 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists. For example, 'list_cards' and 'list_hand' both list cards, with the latter being a filtered subset, which could cause confusion. Similarly, 'mark_done' and 'mark_started' are clear, but 'archive_card' and 'delete_card' are distinguished by reversibility, which might not be immediately obvious. Overall, descriptions help clarify, but there is moderate overlap in card-related operations.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'create_card', 'list_cards', and 'update_cards'. Minor deviations include 'scaffold_feature' and 'split_features', which use slightly different verbs but maintain readability. The naming is largely predictable, with only a few tools breaking the pattern without causing significant confusion.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 38 tools, the count is excessive for a project management server, making it feel heavy and potentially overwhelming. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality. This high number increases complexity and reduces usability for agents, indicating poor scoping.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for project management tasks, including CRUD operations for cards, comments, and planning, along with workflow utilities and reporting. It supports full lifecycle management from creation to archiving, with no apparent gaps. The inclusion of planning, feedback, and preference tools ensures agents can handle all core workflows without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources