Skip to main content
Glama
hernaninverso

eleata-verify-mcp

by hernaninverso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to eleata-verify-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-citation-checker

      ethanchand
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that verifies whether a claim is actually supported by the source text at a given citation — independent of what the calling LLM asserts.
      MIT

    • xrad

      narimannemo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides an MCP server for storing and querying knowledge as verifiable claims, enforcing evidence-backed assertions with exact quotes and refusing paraphrases or unsupported relations.
      Apache 2.0

    • corroborate-mcp

      chefcohen
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that evaluates claims by counting independent story origins, giving AI agents a verdict on reporting corroboration rather than truth.
      2
      35 npm
      1
      MIT

    • tru8-mcp

      SamYatesSmith
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for Tru8 Evidence Research that enables AI agents to submit claims or URLs and receive source-traced evidence organized by tier and type with element decomposition and relationship mapping.
      3
      50 PyPI
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    verify_claim and verify_strict are nearly identical except for an abstention threshold, making it unclear which to choose. check_groundedness overlaps in purpose (checking support in context/evidence). Agents will struggle to differentiate without additional heuristics.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Two tools use 'verify_' (one with noun 'claim', one with adjective 'strict'), and one uses 'check_groundedness'. The verbs 'check' and 'verify' are synonymous but break pattern consistency. The mix of noun and adjective styles is acceptable but not uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the count is slightly low but appropriate for a narrowly scoped verification server. Each tool serves a distinct mode (normal, strict, groundedness), so no tool feels superfluous.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers the core verification operations but lacks any tool for evidence retrieval, source management, or batch verification. The strict version adds nuance but also indicates incomplete coverage of confidence levels. Agents may need to work around missing functionality.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources