Skip to main content
Glama
AleBrito124356

mcp-devils-advocate

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-devils-advocate

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables users to stress-test decisions and plans with structured contrarian analysis, surfacing blind spots, hidden assumptions, and failure scenarios through multiple modes such as counter, probe, redteam, and premortem.
      1
      39 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides five rigorous reasoning protocols (debate, red team, audit_argument, threat_model, check_study) that run on the AI you're already using, requiring no extra API keys or costs.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables structured, iterative reasoning for complex problem-solving with features like confidence tracking, revision mechanisms, and branching support. Provides flexible validation and multiple output formats for systematic analysis and decision-making tasks.
      1
      34 npm
      72
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables a structured multi-perspective deliberation workflow where three independent advisors propose strategies, cross-examine one another, and a final arbiter converges on a verdict, with all generation performed by the host agent.
      3
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides 8 MCP tools for deterministic, read-only reasoning: intake, routing, planning, rubric, sweep checklist, verdict gate, reflection, and evaluation. It forces scope locks, disconfirmation-first plans, blind-spot sweeps, and evidence-gated verdicts.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct step in the review workflow: starting, submitting, checking status, getting verdict, exporting, listing, and abandoning. get_verdict and export_report both produce output but are clearly differentiated (compilation vs. shareable export). No overlapping purposes exist.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case and follow an imperative verb pattern. The one exception is 'submit', which lacks a noun, but its purpose is clear from context and the rest are consistently verb_noun.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools perfectly cover the review lifecycle without redundancy. Each tool is necessary and earns its place, from initiation through final export and cleanup.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set provides full CRUD-like lifecycle coverage for structured reviews: start, submit phase items, track progress, compile verdict, export results, list sessions, and abandon unfinished work. No obvious gaps remain for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues