Skip to main content
Glama
splinesreticulating

Icecast MCP Server

by splinesreticulating
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Icecast MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Kastell by kastelldev

      Kastellofficial

      kastelldev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Server security auditing (413 checks, 29 categories), production hardening, and fleet management. Supports Hetzner, DigitalOcean, Vultr, and Linode.
      17
      150 npm
      60
      Apache 2.0

    • system-monitor

      2428424081cn
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A secure, read-only MCP server for AI-powered system monitoring. It provides real-time OS metrics, config discovery, and safe log tailing to enable autonomous infrastructure audits without shell access risks.
      4
      1
      -

    • MEOK MCP Hardening MCP

      CSOAI-ORG
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Automated security red-team for any MCP server that scans manifests against OWASP LLM Top 10 and MCP-specific risks, returning a 0-100 hardening score and HMAC-signed report.
      7
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one analyzes a specific configuration file, while the other provides general best practices. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with descriptive prefixes (analyze_icecast_config, get_icecast_best_practices), maintaining full consistency.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its stated purpose. While the tools are focused, a broader scope (e.g., validation, editing) would justify more tools, but it's borderline acceptable.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover analysis and best practices, but lack validation, comparison, or modification capabilities. This leaves notable gaps for a comprehensive configuration tool.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources