Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Verity MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes verification and safety tools to MCP clients, enabling text and agent-output hallucination checks, computer-use action risk grading, and prompt-injection, jailbreak, harmful-content, sensitive-data, and fraud screening through an authenticated proxy.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes governance, trust-scoring, compliance, guardrail, cost, drift, and supply-chain scanning tools and resources to any MCP client over stdio, Streamable HTTP, or legacy HTTP+SSE. It lets agents route every tool call through a deterministic five-way decision (allow, redact, require approval, deny, or quarantine) with hash-chained evidence, human approval workflows, and in-agent trust gates for LangChain, LangGraph, and Google ADK.
      30
      44 PyPI
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables trust, reputation, and economic accountability for MCP by proxying between clients and servers, enriching every tool invocation with trust evaluation, KYA tiers, spending limits, and delegation chains.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that gates agent tool calls by normalizing intent, denying unknown/unattended destructive actions, and requiring HITL prove approval for high-risk operations. It maintains an append-only hash-chained Action Ledger and exposes gate_check and ledger_verify tools without ever executing tools.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      On-chain trust verification for AI agent tools. Agents query skill attestations, audit levels, and risk scores before running third-party MCP servers, so you know what's safe before you execute.
      1
      -

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The three verify tools (quick_verify, grounded_verify, pro_verify) are intentionally similar but clearly differentiated by pricing, grounding, and model tier, so an agent can choose based on stakes. verify_receipt, detect_injection, moderate_content, redact_pii, and guard_action each target distinct safety concerns with little overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (verify_receipt, detect_injection, moderate_content, redact_pii, guard_action). The verify tier breaks the pattern by putting the adjective before the verb (quick_verify, grounded_verify, pro_verify), which is a minor deviation but still readable and predictable within its own subgroup.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for a safety/verification server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose—claim verification at three tiers, receipt checking, injection detection, content moderation, PII redaction, and action gating—without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers the full lifecycle of agent safety: verifying claims before use, detecting prompt injection on input, moderating output content, redacting sensitive data, and gating irreversible actions. The receipt verification tool closes the loop for auditability, and no obvious gap is apparent for the stated domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues