Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hallucination Firewall

Hallucination Firewall

by Parvathy-Raj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Hallucination Firewall

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • footnote

      adwitiyashukla
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables agents to verify their own output mid-task by checking every claim against provided sources, returning supported, partial, unsupported, or contradicted verdicts with exact citations.
      MIT

    • answer-check-mcp

      azterizm
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables an AI agent to verify its draft answer against supplied sources sentence by sentence, flagging unsupported figures, dates, citations, and must/may wording and offering source-backed corrections. An optional judge mode can additionally assess prose via a configured LLM endpoint, while default operation is deterministic and offline.
      1
      AGPL 3.0

    • numguard

      isaacbitran
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables an agent to verify every number in its answer against the tool outputs of the same session, storing recorded outputs and flagging fabricated values that no tool produced. It exposes check, record, and reset tools so agents can recompute, correct, or drop unvouched numbers before finalizing.
      MIT

    • double-check-mcp

      jonathanxuu
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables production-grade answer verification for LLM agents by independently re-checking answers with a configurable verifier model, enforcing confidence policies, and producing Ed25519-signed, auditable verification results with optional web search and knowledge-base evidence.
      3
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a distinct step in the verify workflow: policy setup, evidence capture, single-claim check, whole-answer check, verdict inspection, and rewriting. The only mild overlap is verify_claim vs verify_answer, though the descriptions clearly distinguish one claim from every claim in a draft.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All seven tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (verify_claim, set_policy, record_evidence, reset_session, verify_answer, explain_verdict, rewrite_grounded). No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools is well-scoped for a claim-verification firewall, with each tool covering a necessary stage of the workflow. Nothing feels padded or redundant.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full lifecycle: configure policy, record evidence, verify (single and bulk), explain verdicts, rewrite, and reset. Minor gaps exist in that there is no read-back of the current policy or a way to list/inspect recorded evidence, but core workflows are fully served.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources