A
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceMCP server for local-first code intelligence, providing structural code graph, semantic search, and impact analysis to AI agents.
2
MIT
ProjectBrain
Related Servers
Alternatives to ProjectBrain
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA local-first MCP server that gives AI coding agents durable project memory, dependency graphs, and impact analysis to answer team knowledge and cross-file change questions before editing.49 npm1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server that provides project context, verification gates, and structured tools for coding agents to discover knowledge, run diagnostics, and execute allowlisted commands within a repository.16 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceLocal-first code intelligence and safety layer for AI coding agents. MCP server exposes dependency graph, impact analysis, and AST-compressed repo context, backed by typed local memory, patch-scope safety gates, and git-independent transaction rollback.1MIT
Vibgrate AI Contextofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server that gives AI assistants codebase intelligence—code graph, drift analysis, vulnerability attribution, and version-correct library docs—all from the user's machine.1,307 npm5Apache 2.0- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceUniversal MCP server that analyzes any codebase and provides structured context to AI assistants. Dynamic, accurate, and token-efficient.187 npmMIT
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Scored across 10 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from importing projects and managing experience claims to analyzing impacts and building context packs. The two analysis tools differ by scope: impact_analysis for changed files/symbols and review_git_diff for git changes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use the 'projectbrain_' prefix followed by a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_experience_claim, list_projects, inspect_policy). The naming is predictable and clear across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing local project knowledge. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy, covering import, CRUD for claims, analysis, and context building.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core workflows but has minor gaps: there is no tool to update claim content (only review metadata) and no unarchive functionality. Retrieving a single claim by ID is also missing, though listing works.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues