Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aperture-mcp

aperture-mcp

by jaysinailabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to aperture-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Atelier

      yannickYamo
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to call a check that flags invented specifics, copied passages, and rule breaks in drafts against an approved, versioned standard. Returns actionable tool results so agents can identify and rewrite offending spans.
      -

    • genpark-agent-hallucination

      Alpha-Park
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      Not graded
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents and MCP clients to decompose text into atomic claims and cross-verify them against reference knowledge to flag ungrounded claims, numerical contradictions, and hallucinated entities. Runs deterministically with zero dependencies over JSON-RPC stdio, avoiding LLM round-trips for routine verification tasks.
      -

    • openclaw-output-vetter-mcp

      temurkhan13
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for verifying AI agent claims vs reality — single-transcript inline grounding-check that flags when an agent's response states facts not in the input context, when its code silently swallows exceptions and substitutes mock data, or when its multi-turn transcript contains contradictions or unverified completion claims. Sub-second, local, free, no API calls.
      4
      29 PyPI
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Tools are specialized but overlap with the generic `compare` tool, which can also handle stance, commitment, and proposal anchors. The specialized tools add narrow features but cause ambiguity in tool selection.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Four tools follow `compare_*` pattern, but `health` breaks the convention. The naming is mostly consistent with one clear outlier.

    Tool Count4/5

    Five tools is slightly below what the domain might warrant (e.g., missing a baseline-specific comparison), but still reasonable and not too few.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers common comparison types but has gaps: missing a dedicated baseline comparison, and each specialized tool ignores certain anchor types. The generic `compare` has strict verbatim matching that may miss semantic equivalences.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessLimited data

    Resources