mcp-orchestrator
Related Servers
Alternatives to mcp-orchestrator
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables centralized routing, discovery, namespacing, and execution of tools from multiple remote MCP servers over HTTP/SSE, aggregating them behind a unified MCP gateway with dynamic server management.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA gateway that aggregates multiple MCP servers into a single endpoint, namespacing their tools and forwarding calls, so an agent connects to one MCP to access the entire stack.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceActs as an MCP gateway aggregating multiple child MCP servers into a single namespaced interface, with an optional memory layer that caches tool results to reduce redundant calls.15 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables centralized management and unified interface for multiple child MCP servers (filesystem, sqlite, etc.), allowing users to discover, launch, and execute tools across different MCP servers through a single gateway.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAggregates multiple MCP servers behind a single endpoint, letting MCP clients access all their tools through one URL and token while namespacing tools to avoid collisions.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI harnesses to connect to a single MCP endpoint that routes to multiple downstream MCP servers, discovering and executing capabilities on demand while keeping tool schemas out of context.450 npmApache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches/disovers tools across servers, the other invokes a specific remote tool. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both names are snake_case and descriptive, but 'tool_search' follows a noun_verb pattern while 'call_remote_tool' follows verb_remote_noun. This is a minor inconsistency; renaming to 'search_tools' would make it perfectly uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for an orchestrator role. The tool count is borderline below the typical 3-15 range, but the two tools cover core orchestration functions (discovery and invocation).
The pair covers the main workflow: search for tools and call them. However, missing operations like listing registered servers, checking server health, or managing registrations mean the surface is not fully complete for a comprehensive orchestrator, though workable for basic flows.