parseltongue-claude
Related Servers
Alternatives to parseltongue-claude
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceThis MCP server enables AI agents to extract, verify, and cache factual claims from text using Claude Haiku and semantic fingerprinting, with tools for content verification, signal verification, and fact memory search.11 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that enhances Claude Code with evidence-first engineering, protocol gates, project-aware verification, auditable traces, and durable autonomous execution.18 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for Claude Text Lab, enabling fact-preserving regeneration of Claude-generated text through inspect, sanitize, audit, rewrite, and benchmark operations, with auditable local quality gates and an unverified provenance verdict.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server enabling Claude to consult Codex (GPT-5.x) mid-task for second opinions, plan/diff review, brainstorming, and codebase exploration via structured debates and permission-controlled interactions.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA model-free MCP server that enforces an adversarial, Karl Popper-style review loop for Claude Code, catching emergent interaction bugs before implementation.8MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that verifies whether a claim is actually supported by the source text at a given citation — independent of what the calling LLM asserts.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Tools are largely distinct by function: create/register/load/check/query/get/clear each target a different aspect of the session lifecycle. The only mild overlap is parseltongue_check_consistency vs parseltongue_load_dsl (both return verification/consistency info) and get_state vs query, but descriptions make the boundaries reasonably clear.
All tools follow the consistent parseltongue_verb_noun pattern (create_session, register_document, load_dsl, check_consistency, get_state, query, list_sessions, clear_session, dsl_reference). Minor deviation is the verb-less 'query' and 'dsl_reference', but these are readable and predictable overall.
Nine tools is a reasonable count for a session-management plus DSL-engine server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without feeling bulky; slightly on the higher end for a content-verification tool but well within acceptable range.
The surface covers the full session lifecycle: create, register documents, load DSL, check, query, get state, list, and clear. Minor gaps exist (no delete_session/destroy session, no update/append operations), but the core verification workflow is well covered.