mcp-local-erp
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-local-erp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides Claude Desktop with direct access to your local file system for development tasks, enabling file operations (read, write, edit), directory browsing, command execution, and codebase search within a configured projects directory.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceGives a Microsoft Copilot Studio agent Claude-Code-style tools to read, edit, search, and run shell commands against your local filesystem.19MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides filesystem access to Claude via the MCP protocol, enabling local file operations through natural language.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables Claude Desktop or other MCP clients to execute shell commands, read/write files, and list directories on the local machine. Includes basic safety guardrails to block obviously destructive operations.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables local file management through natural language interactions using the Gemini API, with tools for listing, reading, writing, deleting, and updating files.51MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA filesystem Model Context Protocol server that provides Claude Desktop with capabilities to read, write, and manipulate files on your system.10 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 7 tools
All 7 tools have clearly distinct purposes: read/list for browsing, write for modifying, and propose/approve/reject/list_pending for managing the change-plan workflow. There is no ambiguity between them, and the propose/approve workflow is clearly chained.
Tools follow a consistent verb-based pattern: read_file, list_dir, write_file, propose_change, approve_change, reject_change, list_pending_changes. All use snake_case with verb-first naming. The only minor deviation is that 'list_pending_changes' mixes the noun 'changes' with 'list_dir' using 'dir', but this is negligible.
7 tools is well-scoped for a local ERP project server. Each tool earns its place: two for file browsing, one for writing, and four for the governance workflow around changes. No redundancy and no missing obvious categories.
The surface covers file read/write plus a complete change-approval workflow: propose, approve, reject, and list status. A minor gap is that there is no tool to retrieve or inspect a specific plan's details or diff before approving, which agents might need, but the core lifecycle is complete.