precis-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to precis-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables validating CSV structure, checking simple schemas, converting between CSV and JSON, sampling rows, and finding duplicate keys on local files. All processing stays local, so no user data is ever uploaded.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to validate CSV exports against schemas, infer schemas from example files, profile datasets, and diff before/after exports for lab/LIMS data-quality checks.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables language models to run data-quality checks and profiling on local files, using dbt-style assertions like not_null, unique, relationships, and accepted_values.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes data validation as tools so an AI agent can check whether data is actually correct before using it, scoring CSV files with per-row problem details, catching impossible dates, inferring schemas, and generating readable reports.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceLocal-first MCP server for data quality that finds suspicious data, explains findings with evidence, tracks drift, and supports human-approved, reversible repair workflows. Deterministic by default, with AI optional.25420 PyPI2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceZero-config data quality monitoring as MCP tools. Profiles a warehouse (Postgres, BigQuery, Snowflake, MySQL, DuckDB), detects anomalies, and gates CI — read-only with the connection resolved server-side, never via the model.6159 PyPI11MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a largely distinct purpose: validate_data checks data, check_config inspects a project's config files, describe_constraints serves as generic reference documentation, and infer_schema produces draft schemas. The main overlap is between validate_data and check_config, since both are used for diagnosing failures, but the descriptions explicitly frame check_config as the follow-up to a validate_data failure, which mitigates most confusion.
All four tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case convention: validate_data, check_config, describe_constraints, infer_schema. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
Four tools is a good fit for a focused validation/diagnostics server; each tool serves a clear purpose (validate, diagnose config, reference docs, infer schema). It is on the lighter side, so slightly under-scoped but not thin enough to be a problem.
The read-only validation lifecycle is well covered: validate, diagnose, reference constraint types, and draft schemas. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to inspect an existing saved schema or enumerate a project's declared constraints, but these are workarounds rather than blockers.