Skip to main content
Glama
SemanticDataCharter

sdcreceipt-mcp

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to sdcreceipt-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP hosts to verify agent spending mandates and receipts, providing stateless tools for authorization, chain verification, credential verification, and DID resolution.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Issue and verify signed receipts for agent actions, enabling durable, independently checkable proof of policy decisions. Supports offline verification via get_keyset and verify_receipt tools without an account.
      0
      Inno Setup
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides tools to issue, verify, and export cryptographically signed receipts for AI agent actions, enabling tamper-proof audit trails for compliance with regulations like the EU AI Act.
      4
      45 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Cryptographic verification for AI agent actions — ECDSA-secp256k1 signed Action Receipts anchored on Base, multi-dimensional trust vectors, capability tokens, and offline-verifiable on-chain proof. 29 tools.
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables agents to locally validate and decode transparency-log receipts against a chosen trust root, checking exact payload inclusion, grant admission, and receipt contents without a backend, account, key, or network. It also reports sealing, split-view, append-authority, and attribution outcomes using read-only tools.
      3
      95 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.5/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose (verify a VSL Settlement Receipt) is stated clearly and unambiguously.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The lone tool follows a clean verb_noun snake_case convention (verify_receipt), which is the idiomatic form for MCP tools. No naming conflicts or mixed conventions exist.

    Tool Count3/5

    A single tool is thin even for a narrow domain; there is no way to run individual checks, fetch issuer keys, or introspect the verification process. It is defensible for a focused verifier but leaves no granularity for callers.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool covers the core lifecycle of the stated purpose (full verification reporting all checks, including passes), so the main workflow has no dead end. Minor gaps remain, such as discovering issuer keys or running a subset of checks, but the caller-supplied key document mitigates the biggest one.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo issues