gl-mcp-feedback
Related Servers
Alternatives to gl-mcp-feedback
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that establishes feedback-oriented development workflows with dual Web UI and desktop application interfaces, enabling AI to confirm with users via prompts and real-time feedback to reduce speculative operations and improve efficiency.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn interactive feedback MCP server with a web UI, enabling AI-driven development workflows where AI can prompt users for feedback before taking actions, supporting platforms like Cursor, Cline, and Windsurf.2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that establishes feedback-oriented development workflows with a Web UI and desktop app, allowing users to provide interactive feedback to AI models through prompts, images, and session tracking.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA MCP server that collects interactive user feedback during AI-assisted development, reducing unnecessary tool calls and costs by enabling AI to confirm with users.13MIT
- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that enables human-in-the-loop workflow in AI-assisted development tools by allowing users to provide direct feedback to AI agents without consuming additional premium requests.11-
- FlicenseAqualityNot gradedmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables users to review and refine AI outputs through a local web UI, returning feedback as free tool call results to save on GitHub Copilot premium requests. It allows for multiple rounds of iterative improvements within a single request session.130-
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: interactive_feedback collects user feedback via a web UI, and get_system_info retrieves system environment details. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The tool names do not follow a consistent pattern. 'interactive_feedback' is an adjective-noun phrase while 'get_system_info' follows a verb_noun convention, mixing styles and making the set feel inconsistent.
With only 2 tools, the server is on the thin side. The system info tool seems unrelated to the core feedback domain, so the count feels slightly inflated for the apparent purpose.
The interactive_feedback tool provides a complete feedback loop, including handling skips, termination, and rich summaries, so there are no obvious gaps in the primary purpose. The system info tool is an extra that doesn't address any feedback-related gap.