Skip to main content
Glama
nhantour

InferenceView MCP

by nhantour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to InferenceView MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • robotsshop-mcp

      AnalogHubris
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for verifying agent payment integrity on x402, providing tools to check payTo mismatches, market stats, and lookup endpoints.
      1
      MIT

    • VERITY

      Clawdio777
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Real-time fact-checking agent. Verifies claims and URLs against live web sources. Returns CURRENT, OUTDATED, DISPUTED, or UNVERIFIABLE verdicts with confidence scores and what changed. x402 payments on Base.
      282 npm
      MIT

    • stillos-notary

      stillmarcus24
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server providing direct access to StillOS's signed, x402-paid verification and screening tools, including claim notarization, claim verdicts, OFAC sanctions screening, and corporate distress scoring.
      36 npm
      MIT

    • crest-verify

      andysalvo
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Verify x402 endpoints before your agent spends. Three tools: verify (SPEND/CAUTION/INVESTIGATE/DO NOT SPEND backed by 50K+ services), passport (full trust identity), risk_check (deep assessment). No API keys, no signup.
      12 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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools address entirely different verification domains: one assesses transaction risk for x402/MCP resources, while the other evaluates the veracity of factual claims. There is no overlap in inputs, operations, or outputs, making misselection impossible.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names use lowercase and avoid special characters, but verify_transaction follows a clear verb_noun pattern while factcheck is a single compound word. This minor stylistic mismatch is easy to read and does not hinder predictability.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels somewhat thin. However, each tool covers a distinct, substantive verification use case, and the narrow focus justifies the small count, making it acceptable if not ideal.

    Completeness4/5

    The server's implied domain is pre-action verification, and the two tools cover the primary needs: verifying transactions and verifying facts. No critical gaps are apparent within this scope, though a broader verification suite might include other resource types.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources