F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceVerifies AI agent actions by exercising public web surfaces and returning evidence-based pass/fail verdicts on real outcomes, rather than trusting self-reported success messages.
-
claim-verifier
Related Servers
Alternatives to claim-verifier
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceVerifies factual claims against live sources and returns a verdict, confidence score, and citations for any agent to use before stating uncertain facts.6MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables agents and clients to fact-check factual claims against live web sources, returning citable verdicts with source details and cryptographically signed receipts for downstream verification.178 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA verification component for agents that checks claims on public webpages and returns structured results with evidence text, screenshots, and deterministic JSON.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to verify claims against evidence through MCP tools, returning approved, rejected, or needs_review verdicts with replayable receipts.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to verify claims with evidence-based truth scores and confidence levels by running a deterministic pipeline of evidence lanes and adversarial checks.26MIT
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Scored across 3 tools
Disambiguation2/5
verify_url and verify_claim both verify URL loading and phrase presence, while verify_github and verify_claim both verify GitHub merged state. The generic verify_claim tool overlaps heavily with both specialized tools, making tool selection ambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict verify_<target> pattern with clear, predictable nouns. This makes the tool names consistent and easy to guess.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is a reasonable, focused count for a small claim-verification server. However, verify_claim largely duplicates the other two, so not every tool fully earns its place.
Completeness4/5
Core URL and GitHub PR/issue verification workflows are covered with useful evidence. The surface is narrow and lacks support for other claim types like API responses or commits, but no obvious dead ends exist for the stated purpose.