opencode-v2-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to opencode-v2-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables Codex to delegate coding tasks to an OpenCode CLI locally, returning structured results such as exit codes, session summaries, tool calls, and git diffs.2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables ISLI agents and MCP clients to dispatch natural-language coding and terminal tasks to a locally-installed Claude Code CLI, supporting both one-shot execution and persistent sessions with workspace and security controls.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceConnects MCP clients such as Claude, Cursor, and VS Code to OpenCode's headless API so users can delegate coding work — asking questions, implementing features, monitoring background jobs, answering prompts and permission requests, and reviewing changes across multiple projects. Supports synchronous runs, asynchronous jobs with polling and recovery, multi-project directory scoping, and configurable server authentication and tool profiles.25,726 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI chat clients to delegate self-contained coding tasks to opencode's free-tier models as a one-shot subagent through a native MCP tool, without requiring shell commands or API keys.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP clients such as Claude, Cursor, and VS Code to delegate coding tasks to OpenCode, including asking questions, implementing features, monitoring background work, handling prompts and permissions, and reviewing changes across projects.25,726 npmMIT
- FlicenseCqualityCmaintenanceEnables Claude Desktop to act as a planning agent while delegating coding tasks to OpenCode CLI, returning execution status, file diffs, and output, with support for continuing sessions and opening workspaces in IDEs.151-
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly defined.
The single tool name 'opencode_execute' is clear and follows a verb_noun pattern, but with only one tool, there is no pattern to evaluate. It is consistent within itself, though limited.
With only a single tool, the server's surface is extremely thin. For a coding task execution server, one might expect at least a few operations (e.g., list tasks, cancel, etc.). This seems minimal and likely insufficient for robust use.
The single tool appears to cover only one narrow action (execute a coding task). There are no supporting tools for querying status, listing tasks, or managing results, leading to significant gaps in typical workflow coverage.