finos-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to finos-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query a repository's verified semantic model, including capabilities, ownership, contracts, constraints, impact, health, and verification status, without re-deriving project facts. It exposes read-only tools for inspecting, reasoning about, and verifying the provenance-tracked surface.2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to inspect schemas, walk Delta table history, run read-only DuckDB queries, and check data-quality and job-run status safely.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to understand and query your database safely by providing a semantic layer of metadata, with tools to search, explain, validate, and generate safe SQL.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to interact with the OSDU® data platform through Model Context Protocol, providing tools for search, storage, schema management, and dataset operations.2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes Iceberg-backed ontology objects, links, and actions as typed MCP tools for LLM agents, enabling governed data access and operations without raw SQL.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible agents to query security checklists, protocols, and framework mappings to safely build and operate AI agents, with tools for checklist runs, protocol lookup, mapping lookup, and threat search.9CC BY-4.0
TDQS
Scored across 11 tools
Most tools target clearly distinct resources and actions (list_risks vs get_risk vs list_controls vs get_control). The main overlap is between search_framework and the list_* tools, and between map_control_to_external and find_by_external_reference, but the descriptions make the boundaries (forward vs reverse crosswalk, free-text search vs filtered listing) reasonably clear.
Strong verb_noun pattern: list_risks, get_risk, list_controls, get_control, map_risks_to_controls, map_control_to_external, find_by_external_reference. Minor deviations are search_status and server_info, which describe state rather than an action but are still readable and predictable.
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a reference-framework server. Each tool earns its place: search, per-type listing and retrieval, bidirectional mapping, and reference listing/info all cover distinct needs.
Coverage is strong for a read-only reference surface: search, list/get for both risks and controls, risk-to-control mapping, control-to-external crosswalk, reverse crosswalk, and framework listing. The main gap is that external crosswalking is only directly exposed for controls (map_control_to_external), with risk-side external mapping only inferable via the reverse lookup.