answer-check-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to answer-check-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to check a drafted answer against supplied sources or a document before stating or acting on it, returning claim-level support status, contradictions, omissions, and a verdict.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables per-claim citation verification for AI-generated text by fetching cited sources and judging whether they support the claim, with verdicts and evidence quotes.58 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables language models to verify claims against a local document corpus by returning a literal supporting quote, a contradiction, or an explicit refusal when evidence is insufficient. Runs deterministically offline over local sources without network access or LLM calls.4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to verify claims deterministically by computing arithmetic, ratios, and dates and matching statements against provided sources, returning a confidence ladder of certain, source-backed, or unverifiable.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. Its purpose—sentence-level verification of an answer against sources—is stated precisely and includes clear output semantics (supported/unsupported/unchecked).
The single name check_answer follows a clean verb_noun snake_case convention. With one tool there is no opportunity for inconsistent naming to creep in.
A one-tool surface is thin, but the server appears deliberately scoped to a single deterministic verification operation, so the tool is not arbitrary. It sits at the borderline of the count guideline rather than being a clear mismatch.
The tool covers its stated domain: it checks each sentence, reports per-sentence status, and supplies replacement values where possible. Minor gaps exist—no batch/multi-answer mode or configuration of source handling—but core verification is covered with no dead ends.