Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jcschuster

AtpMcp

by jcschuster
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to AtpMcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • smt-mcp

      theTyster
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables logical entailment and satisfiability checks by dispatching formal SMT-LIB queries to both Z3 and cvc5, returning auditable solver verdicts, counterexamples, and caveats.
      4
      MIT

    • Logic-Thinking MCP Server

      quanticsoul4772
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables formal logical reasoning, mathematical problem-solving, and proof construction across 11 logic systems including propositional, predicate, modal, fuzzy, and probabilistic logic. Integrates external solvers (Z3, ProbLog, Clingo) for advanced reasoning, with support for proof storage, argument scoring, and cross-system translation.
      1
      MIT

    • Logic-LM MCP Server

      shipitsteven
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides symbolic reasoning capabilities by converting natural language logical problems into Answer Set Programming (ASP) format and solving them using the Clingo solver. Enables users to perform formal logical reasoning, verify logical arguments, and get step-by-step explanations for complex logical problems.
      5
      MIT

    • MCP Logic

      autonull
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables first-order logic reasoning including theorem proving, model finding, counterexample detection, and category theory diagram verification using pure TypeScript with no external dependencies.
      13
      4
      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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but `query_backend` and `run_prover` both submit a TPTP problem and return SZS verdicts, differing mainly by abstraction level and target. The descriptions help clarify when to use `prove_isabelle` versus `query_backend` with the Isabelle backend, but there is still some potential for confusion between the unified query path and the direct prover path.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (`list_backends`, `verify_backend`, `query_backend`, `run_prover`, `compare_provers`, etc.). Proper nouns and acronyms like `szs` and `isabelle` are used naturally without breaking the convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well-scoped for an ATP integration server covering discovery, verification, execution, comparison, linting, and Isabelle-specific proving. Each tool appears to earn its place without obvious redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core ATP lifecycle well: listing backends/provers, understanding SZS verdicts, verifying configuration, running and comparing provers, linting problems, and proving Isabelle theories. Minor gaps remain around managing or inspecting the long-lived Isabelle session and retrieving raw output consistently across all execution paths.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources