Skip to main content
Glama
neelbarm

mcp-trustlayer

by neelbarm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-trustlayer

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • review-gate-mcp

      ravnlab
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that extracts fields from documents and holds uncertain extractions for human review, ensuring high confidence data flows automatically while uncertain cases are resolved manually.
      3
      MIT
    • mcp-review by apatureai

      mcp-reviewofficial

      apatureai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server for in-loop design review of web previews. It enables agents to submit a preview URL, receive structured findings with suggested fixes, and recheck after applying changes, while never editing code itself.
      5
      1
      MIT

    • honest-reasoning-mcp

      NIWS-shindongju
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A self-hosted MCP server that provides tools for structured reasoning, confidence calibration, and detecting recurring gaps in AI outputs, aiming to reduce workload by improving verification and attention allocation.
      -

    • governed-mcp

      rsiraj0
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that enforces governance on agentic decisions with auditable evidence records, providing tools for understanding, calibrating confidence, and navigating handoffs based on policy.
      1
      -
    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

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: evaluate_fields determines field dispositions, while calibrate_threshold analyzes trade-offs across threshold values. There is no overlap in their responsibilities.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern ('evaluate_fields', 'calibrate_threshold'), using consistent lowercase with underscores. The pattern is predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the set is slightly thin, but this matches the narrow, focused scope of the trust-layer functionality. Each tool earns its place.

    Completeness3/5

    The workflow is missing a way to actually apply the calibrated threshold to the evaluate_fields tool; calibration is informational but there is no explicit 'set_threshold' or parameter. This creates a notable gap for end-to-end usage.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources