Skip to main content
Glama
yogeshkulkarni553

Content Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to Content Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables authenticated organization members to submit, query, and manage schema-validated structured records directly from ChatGPT, with membership requests and approval workflows gating access. All operations are tenant-isolated, permission-checked, and audited, so records are only reachable by approved members of the owning organization.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Serves organizational context to MCP-capable AI agents from a local folder or GitHub repository, and lets agents propose changes that require human approval.
      4
      3 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables users to store resumes, job descriptions, voice profiles, and career stories locally, then retrieve them as context for match analysis, tailored resumes, cover letters, LinkedIn About sections, and guided story interviews.
      69 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Serves as a durable catalog for report definitions and gathered outputs, enabling agents to save findings with source URLs and retrieve the freshest output to compile cited reports.
      10
      AGPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to access and manage project guidelines, documentation, and context through a structured content system with template support and workflow management.
      37
      42 PyPI
      MIT

    TDQS

    C2.8/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes: listing, searching, deleting, and two upload methods (file vs. URL). However, 'listContentNames' and 'searchOrganizationContents' could be confused as both retrieve content, though 'search' implies semantic filtering while 'list' is name-based. The two upload tools are clearly differentiated by input type.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions: 'deleteOrganizationContent' uses camelCase, while 'listContentNames', 'searchOrganizationContents', and the upload tools use a mix of camelCase and descriptive phrases. There's no uniform verb_noun pattern; for example, 'uploadContentFileAboutOrganization' is overly verbose and deviates from simpler naming like 'uploadContentFile'.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 5 tools, the count is well-scoped for a content management server. It covers core operations (list, search, delete, upload via file, upload via URL) without being overwhelming or too sparse, fitting typical server purposes efficiently.

    Completeness3/5

    The toolset covers basic CRUD operations: create (via upload tools), read (list and search), and delete, but lacks an update tool for modifying existing content. This gap could cause agent failures if content needs editing, though agents might work around it by deleting and re-uploading.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues