Skip to main content
Glama
b4ked

reqtrace-mcp

by b4ked
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to reqtrace-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • AgentRig

      ChenCJ-io
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables evidence-first regression testing for AI agents by turning production traces into reviewed, replayable cases that gate releases. It supports reproducible, auditable agent evaluation with controlled tool execution, evidence-based judging, and versioned quality gates.
      MIT

    • mcp-security-compliance

      an0malous
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Integrates authoritative security compliance frameworks (ISO 27001, NIST 800-53, OWASP ASVS, NIST SSDF) into AI-assisted development, offering control lookups, cross-framework mappings, build-time guardrails, and automated audit evidence generation.
      141 npm
      3
      MIT

    • codex-protocol-guardian

      wewq36720-cyber
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enforces protocol-driven development by validating requirements, designs, scope, and acceptance evidence, while maintaining immutable, traceable governance archives.
      -
    • Metsuke by plenoai

      Metsukeofficial

      plenoai
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides SDLC compliance verification as tools that AI agents can invoke, continuously monitoring and evaluating development processes.
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 12 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target distinct actions: get_requirement vs list_requirements (one vs all), run_verification vs coverage_report (execution vs metrics), find_gaps vs lint_requirements (blocking gaps vs quality checks). There is mild overlap between trace_matrix, coverage_report, and get_requirement since all surface mapping/coverage data, but the descriptions give enough framing to distinguish them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use consistent snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_requirement, list_requirements, run_verification, lint_requirements, flag_requirement_issue, propose_links, record_review). A few are noun phrases (trace_matrix, coverage_report, evidence_report, impact_of_change), which is a minor deviation but still predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Twelve tools sit squarely in the well-scoped range for a requirements-traceability and verification server. Each tool maps to a distinct lifecycle activity (inspect, verify, report, flag, propose, sign off), so no tool feels redundant or missing.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full traceability loop: listing/getting requirements, running verification, coverage, gap detection, quality linting, issue flagging, link proposals, human sign-off, and evidence export. The only gap is no direct tool to author or edit requirements, but this appears intentional given the annotation-based, human-in-the-loop design.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources