Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Tech Debt MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to review code-health deltas, preview proposed changes, score files or whole projects, and get explanations of code smells through MCP tools.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to analyze repository architecture, changed-file and diff impact, dependency and endpoint exposure, API contract compatibility, architecture boundaries, bounded capacity simulations, and security/quality evidence through MCP tools.
      3
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes technical debt management to AI coding assistants, enabling them to find, prioritize, and resolve TODO/FIXME/BUG comments across codebases via MCP tools.
      6
      51 npm
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to perform comprehensive, zero-infrastructure codebase analysis through 24 MCP tools, covering security, quality, architecture, type safety, git history, and dead code detection with high precision and local privacy.
      45
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to check code changes against architecture and business rules, assess dependency impact before edits, verify violations after edits, and record tamper-evident audit evidence through MCP tools.
      4
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 16 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target distinct operations: whole-project vs single-file analysis, severity vs category filtering, and the custom-rule lifecycle (add/remove/list/execute/validate) are clearly separated. The main overlap is check_dependencies vs get_vulnerability_report, whose description ('offline dependency report listing all project dependencies') suggests it largely duplicates dependency analysis rather than delivering the CVE lookups its name implies.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool follows a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (analyze_project, get_sqale_metrics, list_custom_rules, add_custom_rule, validate_custom_pattern). Verb choices (analyze/get/list/add/remove/execute/check/validate) are conventional and predictable for their actions.

    Tool Count4/5

    16 tools is slightly above the comfortable band but justified by the breadth of the domain (analysis, metrics, issue filtering, recommendations, custom rules, dependencies, config). Each tool maps to a real user need rather than being redundant filler.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core lifecycle: analysis (project/file), summary and SQALE metrics, filtered issue retrieval, recommendations, full custom-rule management, dependency checking, and config validation. The one notable gap is that vulnerability reporting stops at an offline dependency listing with no actual CVE data, leaving a dead end for security review.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues