emperor-vikunja
Related Servers
Alternatives to emperor-vikunja
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to interact with a Vikunja instance through tools for listing, creating, updating, and removing tasks, projects, and labels. It deliberately avoids permanent task deletion, using a configurable label for soft removal instead.11MIT
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to read, create, close, and comment on Vikunja tasks, allowing agents to manage a project board autonomously.7MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceBridges MCP clients to a self-hosted Vikunja instance, exposing tools for managing projects, tasks, labels, and comments.64 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLightweight MCP server for Vikunja task management, providing tools to manage projects, tasks, labels, and comments via API.64 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables interaction with Vikunja task management instances through natural language. Supports comprehensive project and task operations including CRUD, assignments, labels, comments, relations, and attachments.3364 npm2MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceLets Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor and other MCP clients list, create, update and complete tasks, browse and create projects, and manage labels in a Vikunja instance through its REST API, running locally over stdio via npx.1023 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource+action: listing projects vs listing tasks vs reading one task vs creating/updating a task, plus adding a comment. The only mild overlap is `comment` versus `update_task`, since commenting is arguably a mutation of a task, but the descriptions make the boundary clear.
Five of six tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (list_projects, list_tasks, get_task, create_task, update_task). The lone `comment` is a bare verb with no object, a minor deviation rather than a different convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a focused task-management integration, and the design wisely folds labels, assignees, priority, due date and project moves into create/update parameters instead of adding one tool per field. Every tool earns its place.
Task lifecycle is covered for create/read/list/update/comment, but there is no delete or archive operation for tasks and no way to create or manage projects beyond listing them. Comment reading is also capped at the 50 most recent with no pagination escape hatch, which will bite on long threads.