keystone-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to keystone-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that connects AI agents to a shared organizational knowledge base, allowing them to query company-specific context like pricing, team, and strategy.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that allows coding agents to look up contextual rules and patterns on demand, providing just-in-time guidance for specific tasks like writing tests or authoring UI.28MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides coding agents with fully-contextualized work orders from a knowledge graph, enabling them to retrieve and update work order status.3 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceThis MCP server enables coding agents to retrieve code across the whole machine through task briefings, exact file and line locations, grounded answers, dependency lookups, session guidance, and status checks, while reporting corrections and knowledge gaps to a separate retrieval engine.10MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that gives AI coding agents structured access to a project's architecture, rules, modules, and technical decisions.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that enables coding agents to retrieve project context, semantically search indexed documentation, and read specific documents from registered repositories.2MIT
TDQS
Scored across 14 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: setup vs. scaffolding specific artifact types vs. querying topics. The overlapping new_sensor/new_script/new_prompt tools are well-separated by their descriptions (sensor wrappers vs. bare scripts/prompts), and the remaining tools target different artifact categories.
The keystone_ prefix and consistent 'new_' pattern for scaffolding tools provide strong consistency. However, keystone_harness_bootstrap and keystone_target_add invert the verb_noun order (noun+verb), which is a minor deviation from the prevailing pattern.
With 14 tools, the server is within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool corresponds to a distinct artifact or operation within the scaffolding workflow, making the count well-scoped and justified.
The server covers the full scaffolding lifecycle: setup, artifact creation for all defined types, target installation, and patch application. Minor gaps include lack of listing/update/delete operations for individual artifacts and no create_topic, but the core workflows are complete.