F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceValidates JSON payloads against JSON Schema deterministically, providing precise validation results and error paths.
7 npm
3
-
SeedPEA MCP Adapter
by Grativy6
This server provides read-only MCP tools that inspect declared JSON structures for traceable reasoning review, without granting authority, approving release, registering anything, or authorizing action.
review_evaluator_grant_json— Inspect declared PEA evaluator-grant fields without granting authority.review_release_envelope_json— Inspect declared SEED-aligned release fields without approving release.inspect_authority_separation_json— Inspect whether crossing roles are separately declared without authorizing action.review_institutional_branch_registration_json— Inspect an institutional branch declaration without registering it.All inputs are bounded JSON strings; operations are structural validation only, with no model calls, private-memory access, recurring work, or execution of reviewed actions.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@SeedPEA MCP AdapterCheck if this PEA evaluator-grant JSON is complete for review"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
SeedPEA MCP Adapter
SeedPEA provides a small, local foundation for systems that need traceable reasoning, separately sourced grants, candidate review, and room for human choice. Its default adapter contains PAL, CHARTER, PECAN, PEA, SEED, source and compatibility checks, and offline PEACHES preparation and verification.
Review build: adapter 0.3.0; shared foundation 0.2.0. This is a finite software adaptation with explicit limits, not blanket framework conformance. Christopher Daniel Pang authored the source frameworks; AI assistance remains tool assistance.
Install and connect
Python 3.11 or later is required. The three required distributions are
peaches-book==0.1.0, seedpea-foundation==0.2.0, and
seedpea-mcp-adapter==0.3.0. Review artifacts are not published to a package
registry. Install their wheels from the build wheelhouse, or install the Book
of Peaches checkout, this repository's foundation, and this checkout in order:
python -m pip install <book-of-peaches-checkout>
python -m pip install ./packages/foundation
python -m pip install .
python -m seedpea_adapter.serverThe last command starts an MCP stdio server. Configure the host with the virtual
environment's Python executable and arguments ["-m","seedpea_adapter.server"].
No model, running Hearthline service, private repository, scheduler, signing
key or production book is required.
Related MCP server: mcp-jsonschema
Supported operations
Tool | Finite operation |
| Account snapshots, immutable receipt continuity, separate tests and scoped closure, residuals and reopening. |
| Pointwise recovered work, source content and current declared requirements, grant and resources kept separate. |
| Finite nested costs with unique attribution and explicit completeness; unknown costs remain unknown. |
| PAL v2.4 artifact pins, open obligations and finite implementation limits. |
| Separate work, completion-criterion and ledger duties; finite limits, selected carry and finish evidence. |
| Separate stages and declared subject/object/action/scope, consent, expiry, revocation and remaining uses. |
| Scoped evaluator grant, sourced reasons and unresolved conditions for human review. |
| Sourced claims, limits, choices, refusal, correction, reopening and natural stop. |
| List/search references, exact-version read, compare supplied content to a declared digest. |
| PAL 2.4 mapping by default; |
| Prepare test input or verify signatures under separately supplied context. No append. |
The three minimal preview checks remain available through the same maintained
implementation. Set SEEDPEA_PROFILE=institution to include the optional
institutional declaration check. It does not create accounts or submit to an
institution. The shared foundation is maintained here and used directly by the
public Hearthline toolkit.
JSON arguments are bounded strings. Duplicate keys, malformed values and excessive inputs are rejected. See operational contracts for fixtures, statuses and recovery limits.
Meaning and limits
STRUCTURALLY_VALID_FOR_NAMED_PROFILE concerns only the declared finite
profile. It supplies no truth, ethics, consent, standing, permission or
authority. PECAN reports declared current grant usability separately from
structural validity. PEA leaves disposition to the human route. PEACHES
verification cannot manufacture a canonical registration receipt.
No reviewed action is executed; grants are not consumed or renewed. No model call, private-memory access or recurring work is performed.
The active source references are PAL 2.4, CHARTER 1.0, PECAN 1.0.4, PEA Core 1.1.3, SEED 0.3 and PPP 0.6. PPP's PAL 2.2 dependency and the original preview's PAL 2.2 target remain historical facts. The PAL 2.3 account checker, exact source read and compatibility mapping remain available. PAL 2.4's new profiles are additive, with pinned sources and O63-O65 still OPEN. Native transport profiles and mathematical realizations are not certified by this adapter. Source references neither become instructions nor relicense papers.
Verify and recover
python -m pytest -q tests packages/foundation/testsCross-adapter integration tests additionally require the separately installed Hearthline toolkit. The minimal foundation remains usable without it. The original 16 deterministic preview checks and repository history are retained.
See boundaries, privacy, migration history and licensing.
Available Tools
4 toolsinspect_authority_separation_jsonC
Inspect whether crossing roles are separately declared without authorizing action.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crossing_json | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. The phrase 'without authorizing action' implies that the inspection does not perform an authorization, hinting at a non-mutating read-only check. However, it does not disclose the absence of state changes, the possibility of side effects, error conditions, or what the returned result indicates. For a tool lacking the safety hints of annotations, this is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence that fits the length requirement. However, the sentence structure is as awkward as it is hard to parse—'crossing roles are separately declared without trusting action' forces multiple reads to deduce what the tool actually offers. The key purpose should have been front-loaded and phrased more directly, e.g., 'Verifies that separate role declarations exist and that no approval action is taken' for better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema is present, it is not provided in the context, so the description must explain the expected input and return meaning. It explains the purpose by a vague question, but does not introduce the initial parameters' content, whether it returns a boolean, alerts, or a detailed analysis, or anything about edge cases such as invalid JSON input. Given the single-parameter simplicity, a complete description should mention the input expectation and the most prominent result, but it does neither.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single required parameter, crossing_json, with type string, but the schema provides zero description. The tool description itself does not mention crossing_json at all, nor does it explain what data the parameter should contain, what format it should be in, or how it maps to the inspection. With 0% schema coverage and no extra detail, an agent has no way to compose a correct value for this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the verb 'inspect' and states the intrinsic resource: whether crossing roles are separately declared. This gives a clear sense of the high-level purpose, but it is vague; the term 'crossing roles' is never defined, and it does not differentiate the inspection from the sibling 'review' tools beyond a superficial verb difference. The name 'inspect_authority_separation_json' suggests a read-only check, but the description does not explicitly say it inspects the correctness of role separation or what the output indicates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, nor does it state criteria such as 'use when you need to verify role separation without expectation of mutation' or 'use if other review tools are insufficient'. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is appropriate for a given situation because no decision rule is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_evaluator_grant_jsonA
Inspect declared PEA evaluator-grant fields without granting authority.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grant_json | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool inspects fields without performing authorization, indicating non-destructive read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites, authentication needs, or whether any state changes occur, though 'inspect' strongly suggests none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the action, target, and a key constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy; it is efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple inspection operation with one parameter and an output schema available, so return value documentation is not necessary. However, the description lacks parameter format guidance and does not mention any context about where the grant_json comes from or how the output is structured, leaving a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'grant_json', and the tool description provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The name hints at a JSON grant representation, but the description does not clarify expected format, structure, or purpose, leaving ambiguity for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and a specific resource 'declared PEA evaluator-grant fields', and explicitly notes that it does not grant authority. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_authority_separation_json or review_release_envelope_json, which target different resources or actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without granting authority' implies a safe, read-only inspection use case, but there is no explicit explanation of when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_institutional_branch_registration_jsonA
Inspect an institutional branch declaration without registering it.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registration_json | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is non-destructive (does not register), which is meaningful, but it does not describe return format, error handling, or whether any state changes occur. This is adequate but minimal for an inspection tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence front-loads the core action and its key constraint. There is no superfluous text, but it keeps even basic behavioral detail to a minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no annotations) and the output schema exists, so a full return description is not required. However, a brief note on acceptable input format or error behavior would notably improve completeness for a bare-bones definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description leaves the single parameter 'registration_json' entirely to its name. The agent must infer that this string contains the branch declaration. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb (inspect), a specific resource (institutional branch declaration), and the distinguishing constraint (without registering it). It clearly differentiates its purpose from siblings that review other declaration types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without registering it' implies a review/inspection use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to select this over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It relies entirely on the tool name and domain context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_release_envelope_jsonB
Inspect declared SEED-aligned release fields without approving release.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| release_json | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool inspects without approving, which implies a read-only and non-mutating nature, adding useful context. Yet it does not disclose other potential behaviors like validation errors or side effects, which would be expected for a tool of this kind.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence: 'Inspect declared SEED-aligned release fields without approving release.' It delivers the action, subject, and the key limitation in as few words as possible, with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an expected output schema, the description adequately conveys what is done and the explicit constraint. There is no extraneous need to explain return values since output schema exists. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify the exact input format, which diminishes full contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only the parameter name 'release_json'. The description does not explain the parameter structure, format, or meaning beyond refers to 'declared SEED-aligned fields', which is insufficient to guide the agent on what exactly to pass. The description adds little semantic value over the raw parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Inspect'), the resource ('declared SEED-aligned release fields'), and the explicit constraint ('without approving release'). This makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from an approval action. However, it does not reference sibling tools, so distinction from similar review tools is only implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is for inspection, explicitly excluding approval, which gives a clear 'when not to use' signal. However, it provides no direct guidance on when the specific siblings (e.g., review_authority_separation or review_evaluator_grant) should be used instead, leaving the selection criteria to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
inspect_authority_separation_json - First observed
review_evaluator_grant_json - First observed
review_institutional_branch_registration_json - First observed
review_release_envelope_json
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Scored across 4 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the PEA/SEED declaration inspection process: authority separation, evaluator grants, release envelopes, and institutional branch registration. The descriptions clearly differentiate the purpose of each tool, so an agent would not confuse them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of verb_object_json, using either 'inspect' or 'review' as the verb followed by the specific domain object. This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
Tool Count4/5
With 4 tools, the set is compact and focused on a specialized inspection domain. The count is appropriate for the narrow scope, though slightly minimal but not insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover four key inspection areas within the PEA/SEED domain, providing a coherent surface for non-authorizing inspections. There might be additional inspection scenarios not covered, but the set appears reasonably complete for its stated purpose.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
MCP Spec Compliance MCP — audits any MCP server.json against the official Model Context Protocol
Validates JSON against a JSON Schema, lists violations. x402 payment required (testnet USDC).
Deterministic validation for AI-generated artifacts: JSON Schema, OpenAPI response, SQL syntax.
JSON Schema validation MCP.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceValidates JSON values against JSON Schema (draft-07). Enables schema validation for structured data.4 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables offline verification that a supplied DSH workflow adhered to declared duty-separation constraints, producing a redacted, content-addressed JSON verdict.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to diagnose JSON incompatibilities against target schemas and explicit rules, then receive bounded deterministic repairs independently verified before delivery.MIT