Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to murphy-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables Claude to independently check an AI agent's work in a local git repository by recording a baseline, running only the checks relevant to the changed files, and cross-checking what the agent claimed. Returns a compact, evidence-labelled report with a verdict and a ready-to-paste next prompt, so unverified success claims can't slip through.
      8
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Captures checkpoints of project files and SQLite tables before an AI agent makes risky changes, then reports differences and rolls them back byte-for-byte, including dropped tables and agent-created junk. Enables agents to snapshot, diff, list, and restore working state with explicit confirmation required before any destructive action.
      18 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to analyze a repository evidence-first, answering questions as verifiable claims with source evidence, targeted test observations, and reference resolution.
      5
      3
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Audits coding agents' claimed actions against the actual Git working tree, blocking completion if any claimed changes are unverified.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Checks what local coding agents such as Claude Code, Codex and Cursor really did: files changed, commands run and test results read from test output, not the agent's word. Unclear test results can be double-checked by Laya (on your computer) or TypeSafe's Jev (cloud, your own API key). Read-only.
      10
      28 npm
      60
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the verification lifecycle: creating a checkpoint, listing checkpoints, reporting observed changes since a checkpoint, and comparing agent claims against observations. The descriptions sharply separate observed evidence from claimed work, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The set mixes naming conventions: check_claims and list_checkpoints follow a verb_noun pattern, while checkpoint is a bare noun/verb and evidence_since is a noun_preposition phrase. The names are still readable and descriptive, but the pattern is not uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools are well-scoped for a focused evidence-and-verification server. Each tool supports a distinct, necessary part of the workflow without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers checkpoint creation, enumeration, observed diffs, and claim verification, which are the core operations. Minor gaps exist, such as retrieving details for a single checkpoint by id or cleaning up/deleting old checkpoints, but agents can work around these limitations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues