Skip to main content
Glama
returdex

EvidenceLens MCP

by returdex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to EvidenceLens MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • smart-read-mcp by SylphxAI

      smart-read-mcpofficial

      SylphxAI
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Provides a universal read path for agents to extract facts, metadata, and provenance from local files and guarded remote URLs without using generative LLMs.
      MIT

    • Project Files Read-only MCP

      13030109506
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables secure, read-only access to local project files (including text, DOCX, PDF, and XLSX) through MCP, with strict directory whitelisting and no write, edit, or command-execution tools.
      1
      MIT

    • chinavideoai

      gpt-img-2
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables deterministic, read-only creation of bilingual video prompts, timed reference-aware shot plans, and focused prompt diagnostics without API keys or external provider calls.
      4
      MIT

    • file-analyzer-mcp

      saewookkangboy
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables local, read-only extraction of text and structure from PDF, DOCX, PPTX, SVG, and PNG files, including OCR for images, directory tree and metadata reporting, with strict path isolation and audit logging.
      -
    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

    C2.3/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation1/5

    There is only one tool, so there is no ambiguity between tools, but the single tool's purpose is vague and could overlap with future tools. Since there is no set to disambiguate, it scores minimal.

    Naming Consistency1/5

    With only one tool, naming consistency is trivial but the naming is not informative; 'review_evidence' is a generic name that doesn't indicate what it does with evidence. No pattern can be assessed.

    Tool Count1/5

    A single tool for a server called 'EvidenceLens MCP' that claims to 'review evidence' is too thin. The scope suggests a larger toolset for evidence review, but only one trivial tool is provided.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool description says 'Accept Phase 1 evidence review metadata and return a deterministic skeleton response.' This covers only a tiny fraction of what an evidence review workflow would need; there's no way to submit actual evidence, get details, update reviews, or handle later phases.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources