Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Context Layer Lab

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A read-only MCP server over a published model catalogue that lets agents search and resolve models, fetch overlay profiles, definitions and citations, and check memory records against a governance overlay through the same code path as the CLI.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to deterministically audit claimed data-deletion requests, reconstruct what personal data remains reachable at a chosen cut-off, and retrieve evidence, case details, queues, what-if results, and verification outputs. It is read-only and lets agents build risk dashboards, review queues, case cards, and DPO briefs from the same capabilities as the CLI.
      10
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Read-only MCP server for querying an evidence-aware knowledge vault with temporal and provenance-aware data, supporting agent memory and semantic graph projections.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server exposing scoped, read-only enterprise operations tools with fail-closed credential handling. It returns opaque approval IDs for mutations and requires a separate operator approval command to release one-time capabilities.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Read-only MCP server exposing a W3C PROV knowledge graph of verified facts with provenance, enabling AI agents to list, search, and check facts while enforcing that writes remain CLI-only.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Read-only MCP server that answers questions about turva.dev from its published data. Five tools return JSON: the service catalog with prices, contact and operator details, engagement principles and dated agent-readiness and security evidence with verification links. Connect over Streamable HTTP. You need no API key. The server does not scan other websites or run audits.
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The four tools target distinct actions: search, validate, explain source claims, and inspect ingestion receipts. explain_source and inspect_ingestion both touch provenance, so minor overlap exists, but their descriptions make the different focuses clear enough.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: explain_source, inspect_ingestion, search_context, validate_record. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for a focused context-inspection and validation layer, and each tool has a clear role with no obvious redundancy. The count sits comfortably in the typical 3-15 range.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers search, validation, source-claim explanation, and ingestion receipt inspection, but lacks mutating lifecycle operations such as create, update, delete, or a direct get-by-ID. For a context layer, these are notable gaps unless the intended scope is strictly read-only inspection.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues