A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceAn MCP server that wraps Aristotle's automated theorem prover for Lean 4, allowing AI assistants to fill in proofs, verify lemmas, and formalize natural language into Lean code.
15
MIT
leanscreen
Related Servers
Alternatives to leanscreen
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that gives LLMs access to formal verification via Z3 and SWI-Prolog, plus tree-sitter-based source code analysis. Translates natural language problems into formal logic using a template-based pipeline, verifies results with mathematical certainty, and analyzes call graphs for reachability, dead code, and impact analysis.72 npm213Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that gives small LLMs verified symbolic-math & logic tools.62Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables verification of Lean 4 mathematical proofs via MCP tools, allowing AI clients to compile and check theorems with Mathlib.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes the Prova reasoning verifier, enabling AI agents to verify their own reasoning and kernel-check Lean 4 proofs before outputting answers.5MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAirtight math tools an AI uses over MCP — 3.7M-theorem search, PSLQ constant ID, OEIS, real Lean kernel checks, applicability checklists. No LLM inside, no API key.1255 PyPI12Apache 2.0
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are clearly distinct: check_fast is deterministic and free, suitable for frequent checks; check_deep includes LLM judges and costs money, appropriate for final verification. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools use a consistent check_ prefix followed by a descriptive adjective (fast, deep), making their purposes clear and following a predictable pattern.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose: one fast/deterministic screen and one deep/expensive screen. Could benefit from a medium option, but current count is reasonable.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the essential workflow: fast frequent checks and deep pre-release verification. A minor gap is the lack of a certification tool, but the descriptions explicitly state neither tool certifies faithfulness, making this intentional.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues