F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnforces protocol-driven development by validating requirements, designs, scope, and acceptance evidence, while maintaining immutable, traceable governance archives.
-
DoneProof MCP
by efficjump
Related Servers
Alternatives to DoneProof MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables spec-driven development acceptance gate with structured receipts, audit logs, and reviewer-ready evidence.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to replace self-reported done checkboxes with verified, evidence-based completion tracking, using automated FAIL_TO_PASS/PASS_TO_PASS tests, mandatory mutation checking, and explicit human/AI reviews when automated proof is impossible.1MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceEnables acceptance gates for AI coding-agent runs by recording evidence, running deterministic validation, applying a quality gate, and rendering auditable outcomes.729 PyPIApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables traceable requirement discovery, technical alignment, and ISO-aligned process checking through deterministic MCP tools and resources, without requiring an embedded LLM.1Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceValidates governance evidence for Codex development tasks, enforcing requirements alignment, single-active-subject candidates, executable specifications, and independent gates for traceable review packets.1-
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Scored across 12 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action in the proof workflow: task creation/retrieval, criteria derivation/setting, verifier discovery/preparation/execution, evidence recording variants, assessment, and report building. Even the two record_* tools are clearly separated by evidence source type: human attestation vs. file hashing.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_task, get_task, set_criteria, execute_verification, and build_proof_report. The naming makes the action and object immediately clear with no style mixing.
Tool Count5/5
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a domain of this complexity. Each tool covers a meaningful step in the proof lifecycle without redundant or filler operations.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: task creation/read, criteria draft and activation, verifier discovery, verification preparation/execution, multiple evidence types, completion assessment, and report generation. Minor gaps exist around explicit task update/delete operations, but those may be intentionally omitted to preserve proof integrity.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues