Skip to main content
Glama
szeider

mcp-solver

by szeider
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-solver

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCP Solver

      swesmith-repos
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables Large Language Models to interactively create, edit, and solve constraint models using backends like MiniZinc, Z3, PySAT, and Clingo. It bridges natural language with symbolic reasoning for solving complex logical, SAT, SMT, and optimization problems.
      MIT

    • minizinc-mcp

      r33drichards
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables solving constraint satisfaction and optimization problems using MiniZinc models via a single tool.
      4
      MIT

    • Gurddy MCP Server

      novvoo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP) like N-Queens, graph coloring, and Sudoku, as well as Linear Programming optimization problems through both MCP tools and HTTP API endpoints.
      2
      MIT

    • Google OR-Tools server

      Jacck
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP-ORTools integrates Google's OR-Tools constraint programming solver with Large Language Models through the MCP, enabling AI models to: Submit and validate constraint models Set model parameters Solve constraint satisfaction and optimization problems Retrieve and analyze solution
      21
      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 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are clearly distinct: python_status, python_interrupt, python_exec, and submit_code each have a unique role. The only mild overlap is between select_backend and python_reset (both create/configure kernels), but descriptions explicitly steer users to prefer select_backend, resolving the ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Four tools share a consistent python_<action> prefix (python_status, python_interrupt, python_exec, python_reset), but select_backend and submit_code break this pattern with a verb_noun convention. Two coexisting conventions make it mixed but still readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a constraint-solving workflow: backend setup, execution, kernel management, and final submission. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The lifecycle (select_backend -> python_exec iterate -> submit_code, with status/interrupt/reset for kernel control) is well covered. Minor gaps: no tool to list or retrieve previously submitted solutions (only a resource mention), but core workflows are complete.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessWithin a week

    Resources