GLPI MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to GLPI MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for GLPI integration, providing tools for ITIL management (tickets, problems, changes, knowledge base, stats, assets, and administration) via the GLPI API.30MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to interact with a GLPI instance through its REST API, allowing natural-language consultation, creation, and updating of tickets, followups, tasks, solutions, knowledge base articles, suppliers, contacts, contracts, and statistics.52-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for Otobo ITSM enabling AI assistants to search, create, update, and manage tickets via the Generic Interface REST API.1010 npm1MIT

tickiti-mcpofficial
AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes the Tickiti helpdesk API to AI assistants, enabling ticket management and helpdesk operations via natural language.11MIT- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to manage GLPI inventory, tickets, and CIA security fields via its REST API.98 npmISC
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server to manage GestSup tickets via an LLM, with tools for creating, reading, commenting, and searching tickets.13MIT
TDQS
Scored across 40 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as ticket CRUD, task management, and KB operations. However, list_tickets and search_tickets overlap in functionality since search_tickets can replicate simple listing with filters, and link_tickets vs list_ticket_links are create vs read but names are close.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., list_tickets, create_ticket, update_ticket. The stats_by_* tools form a coherent sub-pattern, and even kill_session fits the verb_noun convention.
40 tools is excessive according to the rubric (25+ is too many). The visibility management tools alone add 8 variations, and many tools handle niche edge cases that could be consolidated or omitted without losing core functionality.
The ticket lifecycle is well covered with CRUD, linking, merging, followups, and tasks. However, there are notable gaps: no delete for KB articles, no update/delete for followups or solutions, and no deletion of visibility rules, which could leave users unable to correct mistakes or remove obsolete data.