Skip to main content
Glama
icohangar-ops

@cubiczan/chp-mcp

by icohangar-ops
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to @cubiczan/chp-mcp

Related Servers

  • @cubiczan/chp-mcp

    Cubiczan
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables MCP clients to enforce CHP Profile B spend gates, issue and verify signed tool-approval receipts, and audit denied or authorized finance actions.
    12
    49 npm
    MIT

  • gvnr

    instruxi-io
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables MCP clients to ask permission before an agent acts, returning allow, deny, or ask_human with receipts, and to monitor agent spend, limits, and recent decisions.
    1,231 npm
    Functional Source , Version 1.1, ALv2 Future
  • Datashift MCP Server by datashift-io

    Datashift MCP Serverofficial

    datashift-io
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to submit tasks for human or AI review and receive decisions via MCP tools, adding human review checkpoints to workflows.
    MIT

  • notary-mcp

    salmanneedsajob
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP approval gate that ensures agents execute only human-approved, hash-verified actions, providing fail-closed consent for consequential operations.
    -
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

A4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: evaluate_spend_gate runs the policy check, approve_spend performs HITL approval, chp_content_hash computes hashes, and chp_version reports versions. No two tools overlap in purpose or could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

The names are consistent snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (evaluate_spend_gate, approve_spend). The chp_ prefixed helpers break that pattern slightly, but the prefix clearly groups utility/version operations, so the overall convention remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a narrow CHP Profile B protocol surface: gate evaluation, human approval, hashing, and versioning. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: evaluate → approve, with supporting hash and version utilities. A minor gap is the absence of an explicit tool to inspect proposal details, but the described results from evaluate_spend_gate include claims and content hashes, so agents can proceed without major dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources