Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to attest

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for offline verification of signed artifacts — receipts, manifests, and audit bundles. MIT licensed, works without accounts or API calls. Tools: self_test, verify_receipt, verify_bundle, explain_artifact.
      4
      95 npm
      6
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Contributors: dengyier & Tim Shing(成孝添) Check what an AI agent was authorized to do and what its signed evidence supports. Includes reference SOC alert review and a separately enabled Codex preview-directory Guard; installing MCP does not activate Guard.
      32
      263
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that acts as a temporal verification firewall, checking structured assumptions or diffs against immutable version receipts to return allow/block/abstain with cited evidence.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      This MCP server enables agents to issue and verify Ed25519-signed receipts over artifacts, binding an agent, task and file hash so anyone can confirm offline that a delivered file is unchanged. It exposes two tools, issue_receipt and verify_receipt, requiring no account, chain or network access.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A thin MCP server that wraps provenance-receipts and quality-gate services as tools, enabling AI agents to certify content origin and score quality via Ed25519-signed receipts.
      5
      52 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables MCP hosts to verify agent spending mandates and receipts, providing stateless tools for authorization, chain verification, credential verification, and DID resolution.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    verify_artifact and verify_artifact_batch are clearly distinguished by single vs. batch input; the batch tool is essentially a convenience wrapper, so there is slight purpose overlap but descriptions make the boundary clear.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun convention (verify_artifact, verify_artifact_batch) with a predictable _batch suffix for the plural case.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is thin for an attestation service; the single/batch split is reasonable but leaves no room for auxiliary operations like retrieving past verdicts or fetching the signing key.

    Completeness3/5

    Core verification for one or many artifacts is covered, but there are notable gaps: no tool to retrieve a prior verdict or trust score, no way to fetch the Ed25519 public key needed to check the returned signature, and no mandate inspection.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues