Skip to main content
Glama
revclamp

RevClamp MCP Server

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to RevClamp MCP Server

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    The Stripe Model Context Protocol server allows you to integrate with Stripe APIs through function calling. This protocol supports various tools to interact with different Stripe services.
    11,281 npm
    1,966
    -

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Per-call billing and metering proxy for MCP tool servers. Providers set pricing via the open MCP Billing Spec (MIT), consumers pay through Stripe Connect with signed receipts and SLA monitoring.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Connects stdio-based MCP clients such as Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf to a remote company-intelligence gateway. Exposes eight tools for website tech stack, open jobs, hiring intent, Google Ads transparency, company profile and footprint, and hot-buyer or bulk lookups, with a free daily allowance per IP and x402 USDC payments for paid results.
    23
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Paid remote MCP server enabling CLI tool execution with structured receipts, usage logs, and audit-ready evidence for agent and CI workflows.
    1
    -

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 9 tools

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct operations (VAT validation, ROI calculation, signature verification, reconciliation). The main overlap is between revclamp_lint_dispute_evidence and revclamp_stage_stripe_dispute_ce3, which both operate on access_activity_log payloads under the same 18,000 UTF-16 code unit and CE 3.0 constraints, so an agent could occasionally misselect between linting vs. staging.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent revclamp_verb_noun pattern with predictable verbs (simulate, validate, audit, calculate, evaluate, lint, reconcile, stage, verify). This consistency makes the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the appropriate range and each tool maps to a distinct billing/revenue-audit concern. No tools appear redundant or padding the surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers a broad lifecycle: webhook simulation and signature verification, VAT validation, leakage auditing, ghost-usage evaluation, dispute linting/staging, and net-terms reconciliation. Minor gaps exist, such as actually submitting a dispute (only a submit: false draft is staged) and no explicit tool for creating or correcting invoices.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessUnresponsive