A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnables querying and interacting with Ed Discussion platform courses, lessons, threads, activity, quizzes, and lesson progress through MCP tools.
174 npm
Apache 2.0
edstem-mcp
by rob-9
Related Servers
Alternatives to edstem-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server and CLI for Ed Discussion that gives LLMs access to threads, comments, attendance, moderation, file uploads, and instant local search through 43 tools.432MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with Ed Discussions (EdStem) course discussions, manage threads, comments, and facilitate Q&A, with tools for analytics and read status control.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceMCP server for Ed Discussion that enables viewing profile, courses, lessons, threads, and submitting slide answers via natural language.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that allows AI assistants to access EdStem course discussion boards, including listing courses, fetching posts, searching, and retrieving thread details, with automated SSO login support for Georgia Tech.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables managing Canvas LMS courses, assignments, grades, modules, and more from MCP-compatible clients like Claude Desktop, Kiro, or Amazon Q Developer.MIT
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 24 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources and actions (e.g., get_thread vs. list_threads, post_thread vs. edit_thread). However, some overlap exists between post_comment and reply_to_comment, as both involve adding comments, though the latter specifies replying to an existing comment. Tools like star_thread and unstar_thread are clearly paired opposites, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly. Actions are clear (e.g., get, list, post, edit, lock, unlock) and paired opposites are consistently prefixed (e.g., endorse/unendorse, pin/unpin). This predictability makes it easy for an agent to understand and select tools.
Tool Count3/5
With 24 tools, the count is borderline high for a discussion forum server, potentially feeling heavy. While the tools cover many operations, some might be niche (e.g., format_content, upload_file_from_url) or staff-only (e.g., endorse_comment), which could be consolidated or omitted without losing core functionality. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools might be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for a discussion forum domain, including full CRUD/lifecycle operations for threads and comments (create, read, update, delete via editing/removing actions), moderation features (lock, pin, endorse), search, user management, and file uploads. There are no obvious gaps, and agents can handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues