Skip to main content
Glama
koliha

protocol.mcp_server

by koliha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to protocol.mcp_server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • 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
      C
      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
    • DingDawg Agent Spend Policy MCP by dingdawg

      DingDawg Agent Spend Policyofficial

      dingdawg
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Deterministically evaluates whether a proposed agent spend action matches a supplied policy, returning ELIGIBLE, DENY, or STEP_UP with stable reason codes. Provides local policy evidence only, not payment authorization.
      1
      34 npm
      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

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation, and descriptions clarify differences (view persistence, appending evidence vs checks, warrant evaluation, action gating, context packet). 'ewp_check_record' and 'ewp_evidence_record' can sound similar, and 'warrant_now'/'may_act' need careful reading, but the boundaries are clear enough for an agent.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    All names share the ewp_ prefix and snake_case, which is helpful, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ewp_evidence_view_put/get are noun_phrase_verb, ewp_check_record reads as verb_noun, ewp_memory_context is noun_noun, and ewp_may_act is a modal phrase. The mixed conventions are readable but not predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a distinct part of the evidence/warrant workflow without redundancy. Nothing feels bloated or too thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the main lifecycle: persist and load EvidenceViews, append evidence and verification checks, evaluate warrants, gate actions, and retrieve context. It lacks list/update/delete operations, but the append-only record design and 'does not persist warrant' hint make these look intentional rather than critical gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources