Skip to main content
Glama
sgateway

s-gw MCP server

by sgateway
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to s-gw MCP server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Kontrol

      B-A-M-N
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A self-hosted MCP server that enables AI coding agents to read, edit, search, and run code in local projects with human review loops and policy controls.
      MIT

    • DODO MCP

      arthittakun
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP server that enables AI-assisted coding through workspace-scoped tools for file reading/editing, command execution, jobs, Git, LSP, media, browser, and desktop workflows. It enforces OAuth, workspace ACL, trust policies, and file/secret guards so owners can safely grant inspect, edit, or trusted capabilities.
      515 npm
      MIT

    • worker-mcp

      noosxe
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables a coordinator AI agent to spawn, control, and supervise local coding agents with interactive gating for high-risk operations.
      10
      4 npm
      MIT

    • mcp-devtools

      marin1321
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Production-grade MCP server that gives AI agents safe access to your local dev environment: filesystem, databases, processes, and OpenAPI specs.
      15
      31 npm
      3
      MIT

    • projscan

      abhiyoheswaran1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides AI coding agents with AST-accurate, context-budget-aware codebase querying, safety gates, and team policy integration via structured tools and a local plugin layer.
      65 npm
      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

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between sgw_request_execution and sgw_execute_request (create vs. execute), and the names are similar. However, descriptions clarify the difference, and other tools are clearly distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent 'sgw_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case. Each name clearly indicates the action and target, with no deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 7 tools covering scanning, handle management, execution requests, and SSH sessions, the count is well-scoped for a security-focused server. Each tool has a clear role.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers core workflows (scan, request, execute, list handles) but lacks tools for managing pending requests (e.g., list, approve, cancel) or SSH sessions after creation (e.g., list, end), leaving notable gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources