Clearon Content Archive MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to Clearon Content Archive MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables users to create frozen, auditable snapshots of selected Markdown or text-layer PDFs and perform read-only, verifiable local searches with SQLite FTS5/BM25, preserving source hashes, schemas, and page/line anchors.82Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables privacy-aware, deterministic, read-only chat analysis through tools for briefs, aggregate interaction signals, evidence-aware claim audits, and canonical resource discovery.4MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables local-first document versioning with content-addressable storage, word-level AST diffs, and AI-compliance auditing for LLM agents.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables creating and verifying permanent, publicly verifiable content provenance stamps via MCP tools.11 npmMIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables revision-bound source audits with exact article fingerprinting, claim-to-source mapping, quotation verification, and immutable JSON evidence reports for prepublication review.9MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides cryptographic truth infrastructure for AI agents, enabling them to seal content with SHA-256 and Ed25519, verify receipts, anchor them to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps, generate citations, and audit chains of receipts.524 npm1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, such as searching, exact lookup, and registering content. The main ambiguity is between list_incomplete_follow_through and list_update_candidates, which both surface records needing verification or correction, but their descriptions largely clarify the intended focus.
All tool names use a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as get_content_record, record_publication, and approve_voice_example. Even the longer compound names like compare_payload_to_live_state and list_incomplete_follow_through follow the same predictable action-first convention.
The server has 16 tools, which is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool appears to support a distinct archival lifecycle concern. The count is not excessive given the breadth of content, publication, social, correction, and voice-example workflows being covered.
The tool set covers the core content archive lifecycle: register, read, search, update, verify, and append publication/social/correction outcomes. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit unpublish or approval-revocation tool, but the append-only design and existing verification tools make those acceptable omissions.