A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceLocal Git MCP server exposing 29 tools that let AI clients manage repositories, commits, branches, remotes, and advanced git operations via natural language.
29
MIT
gitflic-mcp
by revenant20
Related Servers
Alternatives to gitflic-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for OpenDev Gitea and Gerrit APIs, enabling repository browsing, code review, and change management for LLM agents.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server providing comprehensive Gitea API coverage with 186 tools for managing repositories, issues, pull requests, and CI/CD workflows. It enables autonomous AI agents to perform complex development and administrative tasks directly through a Gitea instance.7MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that exposes 39 tools for GitBook API automation, enabling AI agents to manage documentation, change requests, reviews, and Git Sync.39175 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for the GitCode API, enabling AI assistants to interact with GitCode repositories, issues, pull requests, and more.1MIT
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for gittr.space, a decentralized Git platform on Nostr, enabling AI agents to create repos, push code, manage issues/PRs, and work with Lightning bounties using Nostr identity.751MIT
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 66 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear resource-action distinctions, but there are a few potentially confusing pairs: list_user_projects/list_projects/list_shared_projects all list different project subsets, and close_merge_request vs cancel_merge_request differ only in intent. Descriptions clarify the differences, reducing the risk of misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, using verbs like list, get, create, update, delete, merge, approve, cancel, and start. Even modifiers like recursive or user fit the pattern cleanly, making the naming fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 66 tools, this is far above the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many'. While the server aims to cover a broad platform (GitFlic), the sheer number of tools creates a heavy cognitive load and makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right one.
Completeness3/5
The server covers a wide range of domains: projects, issues, merge requests, branches, commits, tags, releases, discussions, webhooks, and CI/CD. However, there are notable gaps: no create_project or delete_project, no delete_issue, issue creation does not support labels/assignees, and delete_branch is broken due to the API. Core workflows are present, but some lifecycle operations are missing.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues