Skip to main content
Glama
fredyee

HallucC MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to HallucC MCP Server

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP server exposing Verity's trust checks as tools (verify_fact, detect_injection, moderate_content, redact_pii, guard_action) that any MCP-capable agent can discover and call for fail-closed safety verification before spending or sending.
    8
    22 PyPI
    MIT

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables secure interoperability between LLM agents and MCP tool servers by sanitizing requests and responses, masking sensitive tokens, detecting PII, and performing server reputation scans.
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables safe use of any MCP server by proxying and live-scanning all tool requests and responses, blocking or redacting poison descriptions, indirect prompt injection, malicious arguments, and unauthorized destinations.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enforces MCP security by proxying between AI agents and MCP servers, scanning tools and results for prompt injection, enforcing allow/deny policies, redacting sensitive arguments, and logging all traffic.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables secure, low-latency proxying of MCP tool calls by detecting and blocking malicious requests such as path traversals and command injections, while redacting leaked credentials.
    12 npm
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables LLM agents to safely invoke enterprise MCP tools under an enforceable guard that applies allowlist policies, caller roles, parameter restrictions, human confirmation for destructive operations, and a correlated JSONL audit log.
    AGPL 3.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Enables transparent security for any MCP server by intercepting tool calls, blocking prompt injection attempts, masking PII in responses, and writing immutable audit logs.
    338 npm
    MIT

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation3/5

The tools are mostly distinct, but verify_text, check_safety (with optional hallucination detection), and verify_agent all overlap on claim-level hallucination verification. check_cua_actions is clearly separate, but an agent could struggle to choose between the three text/agent verification tools without reading descriptions closely.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a clear lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern with either check_ or verify_ prefixes. The naming is predictable, though the repeated verbs slightly undercut distinctiveness because verify_text and verify_agent share the same verb while having some overlapping functionality.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped surface for a safety/verification server. Each tool represents a distinct capability area: free-text verification, agent action safety, general prompt/output safety, and agent trajectory self-check.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows: verifying claims, checking agent actions, scanning prompts/outputs for safety risks, and self-checking agent trajectories. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated quota/status tool or a more granular single-claim verification endpoint—but agents can work around these using the existing tools.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues