Skip to main content
Glama
koliha

Epistemic Warrant Protocol (EWP)

by koliha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Epistemic Warrant Protocol (EWP)

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • claimgate

      caseone115
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to gate drafts before publishing by extracting and checking claims against supplied evidence, enforcing configured policy rules, and flagging missing AI-disclosure requirements. It exposes tools for draft checks, claim listing, policy-only checks, and server metadata.
      5
      MIT

    • proofline-mcp

      Abhishek249
      A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to validate candidate data pipelines against a trusted reference, running deterministic checks and returning evidence reports through MCP.
      1
      MIT

    • ProofGate

      yuzhiyang1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Evidence-first delivery audit MCP server that evaluates task requirements against delivery evidence and returns a reproducible pass/needs_review/fail decision with a deterministic receipt.
      MIT

    • deepbom-review

      JunHwan-Kwon
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local candidate review of ONNX or TFLite models by checking static evidence and externally measured results against a fixed policy, producing accept/reject/hold evidence ZIPs for AI agent workflows.
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes: memory context, warrant evaluation, evidence persistence/retrieval, check/evidence appending, action gating, and discovery. However, ewp_evidence_view_put and ewp_check_record/ewp_evidence_record both create new snapshots and require ingest roles, which could cause some confusion about when to use each.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the ewp_ prefix and use snake_case, with a consistent verb_noun pattern (put, get, check, list, may_act). Minor deviation: ewp_may_act uses a modal verb rather than an imperative, and ewp_memory_context is a noun phrase rather than verb_noun.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for a specialized epistemic warrant protocol. Each tool covers a distinct operation in the lifecycle: memory context, warrant evaluation, evidence view persistence/retrieval, record appending, action gating, and proposition discovery.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle is covered: put/get evidence views, append evidence/checks, evaluate warrant, gate actions, and list propositions. Minor gaps: no explicit delete/update for evidence views or propositions, and no tool to manage roles or ingest attestation beyond the inline parameter.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources