murphy-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to murphy-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceCaptures 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 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables coding agents to analyze a repository evidence-first, answering questions as verifiable claims with source evidence, targeted test observations, and reference resolution.53Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAudits coding agents' claimed actions against the actual Git working tree, blocking completion if any claimed changes are unverified.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceChecks 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.1028 npm60MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to assemble tamper-evident, locally stored evidence bundles that capture Git state, command results, and file hashes, then verify freshness and export shareable reports.71MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
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.
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.
Four tools are well-scoped for a focused evidence-and-verification server. Each tool supports a distinct, necessary part of the workflow without redundancy.
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.