Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to PrufGate MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes repository reconnaissance tools — file listing and verbatim reading, regex search, dependency-tree parsing across Python/Node/Rust/Go, and test-coverage ingestion — so agents can gather line-numbered evidence from real source files. This lets an audit pipeline physically re-verify every claim and drop findings that cannot be located in the code.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Gives a compatible coding agent read-only access to bounded local verification of changes inside a single host-chosen workspace, exposing six stdio tools that inspect capabilities, static checks, impact analysis, policy evaluation, evidence generation, and suggested tests without shell access, plugin loading, or repository upload.
      0
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to perform evidence-based, read-only audits of supported software projects by exposing bounded project inventory and static-analysis findings for discovery, code review, integration tracing, security, and tests. Reports are returned as Markdown or JSON directly in the tool response, with no code executed or files written.
      8
      281 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Read-only MCP tools for coding agents to audit deployment targets, detect fabricated code, review backlog, database schema, analytics, ML models, architecture docs, and decision lenses.
      11
      5 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to safely inspect a local repository's code and metadata while blocking private data from leaving the machine, providing read-only tools for search, change tracking, and integrity verification.
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each engine (1-6) has a dedicated tool with a specific purpose, and fast_scan vs. full_scan differ clearly by scope (changed files vs. whole workspace). Minor ambiguity remains between running an individual engine tool and the aggregate fast_scan/full_scan, and between prufgate_review and the diff-related engines, but descriptions clarify the boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share a consistent prufgate_ prefix and snake_case suffixes, which is predictable and readable. However, the suffixes are feature/engine nouns (anti_fabrication, test_audit, summary) rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern, so it falls slightly short of a strict convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well-scoped for a scanner with six engines plus summary and aggregate scan modes, and each tool earns its place with a distinct granularity (single engine, fast, full, summary).

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full scan lifecycle: individual engines, changed-file and full-workspace scans, diff review, and reading the last report. Gaps include no tools for configuring thresholds/rules, managing baselines, or retrieving individual findings structurally, but core workflows are covered.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive