Skip to main content
Glama
@proof-holdings/mcp-server

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to @proof-holdings/mcp-server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to verify document timestamps and list all recorded proofs on the Verus blockchain using a VerusID. It queries public Verus RPC endpoints to facilitate hash verification without requiring API keys or authentication.
      3
      47 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to build disclosure requests and validate passport, statement, request, and proof-envelope documents, including structural checks of received presentations for audience/nonce binding, expiry, and requirement coverage. It is local and read-only, and currently never accepts presentations because real proof verification and registry support are not yet implemented.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to self-register, authenticate, and operate a no-code ontology and knowledge-graph platform for facility management, field service, CRM, fleet management, workflow automation, and related business processes through 172 tools.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Issues accountable identities for AI agents before they interact with tools, with tools for identity management and receipt export.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to retrieve real-time data on wallet DeFi positions, token balances, and NFT holdings across multiple blockchains. It supports hundreds of protocols and provides specialized tools for chain-specific or protocol-specific portfolio analysis.
      8
      5 npm
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 179 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Several near-identical creation flows coexist: create_verification, create_session, create_multi_channel_verification, create_verification_request, create_user_request, start_domain_verification, start_user_domain_verification, and start_add_phone all appear to start some kind of verification, and an agent must read deeply to pick the right one. Domain checking is likewise split across verify_domain, verify_domain_with_credentials, trigger_verification, check_domain_verification, and check_user_domain_verification, while listing tools (list_verifications, list_verification_requests, list_my_requests, list_incoming_requests) overlap by subject vs creator. Descriptions are rich but the boundaries between tools remain unclear at the set level.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Most names are snake_case verb_noun, but the verb vocabulary is inconsistent for parallel concepts: start_login vs create_account vs create_session, start_add_phone vs create_session, add_domain vs setup_domain_email, plus bare outliers like search and test_verify. Readable, but there is no single predictable convention an agent can rely on to guess a tool name.

    Tool Count1/5

    179 tools is an extreme surface for a single server — far beyond what an agent can survey, let alone select from reliably. Much of the volume is granular CRUD across a dozen sub-domains (2FA, circles, HITL, delegations, templates, billing, DNS credentials), which should be separate servers or consolidated into fewer parameterized tools.

    Completeness4/5

    Coverage is genuinely broad: verification lifecycle, domains, phones, emails, API keys, webhooks, HITL, circles, delegations, billing, templates, login and 2FA flows all have create/read/update/delete-ish operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g. a confirmation resend tool is explicitly noted as absent, and some poll-only flows), but agents can usually work around them.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues