Skip to main content
Glama
mrhpython

lens-mcp

by mrhpython
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to lens-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • groundlens by groundlens-dev

      groundlensofficial

      groundlens-dev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      GroundLens verifies what an AI system says and does, and seals the result as a signed, offline-verifiable evidence record. This MCP server exposes three tools any agent or client can call: verify_answer (check an answer against its sources under a policy), verify_run (gate an execution trace as ALLOW, REVIEW or DENY), and verify_records (verify a log of evidence records).
      3
      7
      Apache 2.0

    • agentdesk-mcp

      Rih0z
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Adversarial AI review API — independent AI reviews another AI's output. Stop LLMs from grading their own homework. Provides automated quality assurance for AI-generated code, content, and other outputs through independent review pipelines.
      4
      5 npm
      3
      MIT

    • OpenGATE

      nickjlamb
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Open-source verification for evidence-grounded AI. Runs deterministic grounding checks of AI outputs against source evidence, with no LLM judge.
      2
      1
      72 npm
      2
      MIT
    • perf-mcp by Perf-Technology

      perf-mcpofficial

      Perf-Technology
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Fact-checks and fixes AI outputs by catching hallucinations, repairing broken JSON, and correcting errors before they reach users, with tools for verification, validation, and correction.
      4
      25 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

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 9 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct function: main validation, PII scrubbing, health check, three deterministic consistency checks, and defect-bank operations. The main confusion risk is lens_consistency_leaks vs lens_consistency_markers, which sound alike but are clearly separated by case-sensitivity and purpose.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The set mixes verb-initial names like validate_content and scrub_pii with a lens_-prefixed family like lens_consistency_* and lens_catches_*. Within the lens_ families naming is consistent, but the overall convention is not uniform enough for a single predictable pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Nine tools is well-scoped for a validation-focused server covering gate validation, PII scrubbing, consistency checks, health, and defect-bank memory. Each tool has a clear role and none feels redundant or extraneous.

    Completeness4/5

    Core workflows are covered: validate content, scrub PII, run deterministic consistency checks, check service health, and read/add to the defect bank. Minor gaps include no update/delete for defect-bank entries and no tool to manage the deny-list used by lens_consistency_leaks, but these are workable limitations.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources