A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEnables Codex to delegate coding tasks to an OpenCode CLI locally, returning structured results such as exit codes, session summaries, tool calls, and git diffs.
2
MIT
opencode-v2-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to opencode-v2-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- 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 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
- 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-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes opencode's coding agent and shell as MCP tools, enabling MCP-only AI clients to execute shell commands, manage files, and run agent sessions with async job handling.6 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables Claude Code and Claude Desktop to delegate coding tasks to any model available in OpenCode while Claude remains the orchestrator, planning work, reviewing diffs, and running tests. Supports synchronous and async delegation, model selection, session continuation, and permission-aware execution.MIT
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is singular and clearly defined.
Naming Consistency3/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness1/5
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.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues