Skip to main content
Glama
revive123456

dsh-claude-mcp

by revive123456
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to dsh-claude-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • dsh-codex-mcp

      revive123456
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables running one Codex CLI task at a time in an isolated temporary folder, returning Codex's answer and a manifest of produced files for manual review and selective copying.
      1
      MIT

    • Claude Code Manager WAN

      medelmouhajir
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables ISLI agents and MCP clients to dispatch natural-language coding and terminal tasks to a locally-installed Claude Code CLI, supporting both one-shot execution and persistent sessions with workspace and security controls.
      -

    • ollama-mcp-delegate

      Rikiza89
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Claude Code to hand off mechanical work — file edits, code lookups, and lint triage — to a local Ollama model that reads and edits files directly, so file contents never enter Claude's context. Returns only a compact receipt, and reports success only after the change passes a deterministic syntax/project gate, rolling back and escalating on failure.
      4
      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

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. Its purpose—running a Claude Code task in an isolated scratch directory—is clearly stated and unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool is named 'run', a simple verb that clearly reflects its action. No other tools exist to create inconsistency, so naming is perfectly predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is on the thin side for an MCP server, even one with a narrow focus. While it may be sufficient for the core operation, the rubric considers 1-2 tools borderline.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow—run a task, return the final message and artifact manifest—is covered. However, there is no explicit lifecycle management (e.g., cancel, list runs) or in-server artifact retrieval, though the latter is intentionally omitted for security.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources