Skip to main content
Glama
alexfleetcommander

Agent Trust Stack MCP Server

by alexfleetcommander
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Agent Trust Stack MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • AgentAudit MCP

      Rumblingb
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides an immutable, tamper-evident audit trail for AI agents, enabling event logging with cryptographic chaining, search, verification, and statistics.
      2
      MIT

    • TrustMesh MCP Server

      Clioloop
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with trust scoring and reputation management capabilities for secure interactions. Enables agents to check trust scores, rate interactions, and manage disputes before transacting with other agents.
      -

    • PiQrypt MCP Server

      PiQrypt
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to sign decisions with post-quantum cryptographic proofs and maintain secure audit trails for compliance. It provides tools for stamping events, verifying chain integrity, and exporting audit data across industries like finance and healthcare.
      4
      30 npm
      MIT

    • forge-mcp

      pm577
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables agents to carry portable reputation across platforms, with tools for registering agent identities, vouching, verifying trust, and managing memory.
      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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the coc_* lifecycle actions (init, add, status, tail, verify, anchor) and arp_rate/arp_check. Minor overlap exists between get_trust_evidence and coc_status/coc_verify since both surface chain and verification data, but the intended use cases differ enough to avoid real confusion.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The coc_* and arp_* prefixes create useful grouping agenda, but naming style is mixed: some tools are prefix+verb (coc_add, arp_rate), some are prefix+noun (coc_status, coc_tail), and others use generic verb/noun patterns (get_trust_evidence, verify_agent_identity, trust_stack_info). The conventions are readable but not fully consistent.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eleven tools is an appropriate size for a trust-stack server covering chain-of-consciousness, reputation, and identity verification. Each tool provides a distinct operation, and the count feels neither bloated nor overly minimal.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflows are well covered: chain initialization, appending, tail inspection, verification, anchoring, reputation rating/checking, identity validation, and local trust evidence retrieval. Minor gaps exist, such as no per-entry chain lookup or richer reputation aggregation, but these are workable for the domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources