Record MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Record MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAgent-first headless CMS running as a Cloudflare Worker, providing MCP servers for schema/content management and editorial operations.17 npm4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables comprehensive content management through Markdown processing, HTML rendering, intelligent fuzzy search, and document analysis. Supports frontmatter parsing, tag-based filtering, table of contents generation, and directory statistics for efficient content organization and discovery.5 npm3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to save, search, and manage markdown-based research articles through a complete CRUD interface. Supports creating, reading, updating, and deleting articles with frontmatter metadata in a self-hosted file-based system.2MIT
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLets users manage master data through natural-language conversations with AI agents, enabling schema creation, record capture, validation, search, and query answering via 16 MCP tools backed by local JSON storage.16-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-capable AI clients to read and write structured, project-scoped memory through a Cloudflare Worker backed by D1 and R2.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables users to manage data in a simple JSON file database through MCP tools and REST API. Supports creating, reading, updating, and deleting items organized in collections with auto-generated UUIDs.-
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: add_field_to_type modifies schemas, add_review_record creates data entries, add_review_type creates new types, get_review_type retrieves detailed type information, and list_review_types provides an overview. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_field_to_type, get_review_type, list_review_types) with clear, descriptive actions and targets. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing review types and records. The count is appropriate, covering core operations without being overly sparse or bloated, and each tool serves a necessary function in the domain.
The tool set provides good coverage for creating and retrieving review types and records, but lacks update and delete operations (e.g., update_review_type, delete_review_record). This minor gap might require workarounds but does not severely hinder core workflows.