Skip to main content
Glama
ufna

vikunja-mcp

by ufna
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to vikunja-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • super-plumber

      LUKAWI
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for managing workflow topology graphs as pure YAML files, enabling AI agents to read, create, claim, and update task nodes with a strict state machine.
      537 npm
      3
      MIT

    • task-orchestrator

      jpicklyk
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Server-enforced workflow discipline for AI agents. An MCP server providing persistent work items, dependency graphs, quality gates, and actor attribution. Schemas define what agents must produce — the server blocks the call if they don't. Works with any MCP-compatible client.
      204
      MIT

    • pith

      SiluPanda
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for task management that enables AI agents to read, create, update tasks, and track work sessions, allowing agents and humans to collaborate on the same task board.
      5 npm
      9
      MIT

    • Accordo

      AndurilCode
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A YAML-driven workflow guidance MCP server that enables AI coding agents to follow structured development workflows with real-time state tracking and progression control.
      5
      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

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: advance moves stages, call_human asks for help, claim assigns tasks, comment documents progress, decompose splits tasks, get_task retrieves details, next_task suggests what to do next, and return_task handles blocking issues. No two tools overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Tool names mix conventions: some are single verbs (advance, claim, comment, decompose), others are verb+noun with underscore (call_human, get_task, return_task), and one is adjective+noun (next_task). While all are lowercase and readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of managing task workflow from queue to completion. Each tool serves a clear role without unnecessary bulk, and the count comfortably fits the typical range for a focused MCP server.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover core workflow actions (claim, advance, return, get, next, comment, call_human, decompose) but lack basic CRUD operations like creating, updating, or deleting tasks directly. This can force agents into workarounds if new tasks are needed or details must be edited.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources