Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to wcc_mcp_server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Publishes a shared MCP endpoint where API-key users in different groups see and call only the tools their policies permit, mixing remote upstream tools with local ones. Tool discovery and execution are both filtered, hidden-tool calls are denied before their handlers run, and every action is tagged with subject and group in structured JSON logs.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Presents one governed MCP endpoint in front of many tool domains, routing every call through a single executor that enforces per-tool RBAC, rate limits, schema validation, encrypted secrets and PII-masked, hash-chained audit logging. It also lets teams register, validate and four-eyes approve new HTTP-backed tools at runtime so they appear to clients without a restart.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A unified MCP layer that serves organization toolkits as MCP endpoints with per-tool permissions, an async approval queue, and full audit logging.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes a multi-tenant helpdesk over MCP, enabling tool-based ticket, document, and notification operations while applying configurable authorization, tenant-isolation, input-handling, and rate-limit defenses.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes user, membership, and role administration tools via MCP, acting as a thin passthrough to a coordinator API with RBAC enforced by the coordinator using caller bearer tokens.
      8
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients such as editors to start and monitor missions, run the self-healing demo, list departments and blueprints, and approve tasks through the backend API. It also lets trusted departments discover and invoke explicitly granted external stdio or Streamable HTTP tools.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct stage in the event lifecycle: pre-check, drafting, speaker lookup, registration, scheduling, publishing, post-event processing, and cleanup. Even set_registration_link and create_registration_form are clearly separated (one saves an existing link, the other creates a new form). No two tools are ambiguous.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (draft_event, publish_event, collect_attendance, cleanup_state). Minor deviations exist: quick_conflict_check uses a modifier + noun_verb, and speaker_lookup has object_verb order. Overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    10 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool serves a necessary step in the event management workflow. The count feels intentionally scoped, covering planning through post-event actions without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full event lifecycle: conflict checking, drafting, speaker lookup, registration, publishing, attendance, recording, and cleanup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/cancel for published events, poster generation noted as not automated), but the core workflow is complete and agents can execute end-to-end.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues