Skip to main content
Glama
vkolotov

mcp-agent-collaboration

by vkolotov

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-agent-collaboration

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A local MCP server that provides shared, real-time context across multiple AI agents via WebSocket and MCP resource notifications, enabling collaborative workspaces, memory, tasks, and messaging.
      11 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A production-ready MCP server that enables multiple AI agents to collaborate through a shared, concurrency-safe memory space. It supports advanced search, full CRUD operations, and automatic backups to facilitate asynchronous communication between agents.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for inter-agent communication. Gives multiple Claude Code sessions a shared message board, agent registry, and orchestration layer — backed by a cloud relay so agents can coordinate across machines, repos, and teams.
      8
      45 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables AI coding agents to communicate, share state, and coordinate work in real time via MCP tools or REST API.
      44 npm
      8
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      This MCP server acts as a message broker for AI agents, enabling them to register, discover each other, form persistent squads or ad-hoc teams, and communicate via point-to-point messaging, RPC, or pub/sub. It persists state in SQLite and offers 26 MCP tools for agent, squad, team, and message management.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: topic lifecycle (create, join, leave), messaging (send, read, check_in), and listing (topics, members). check_in is a convenience combination but its description clarifies its dual role.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_topic, join_topic, send_message, read_messages, list_topics, list_topic_members). Minor phrasal verb 'check_in' still fits the style.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools cover the domain of topic-based collaboration without redundancy or bloat. Each tool serves a distinct function and the count is well within the ideal range.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers topic creation, joining/leaving, messaging, and listing topics/members. A delete_topic operation is missing but might be intentionally omitted for ephemeral in-memory topics, so minor gap only.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues