Ripplecheck MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Ripplecheck MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceLLM-assisted, safety-gated Postgres migrations exposed as an MCP server, using a deterministic rule engine over Postgres's own parser AST for safety enforcement, with two-phase approval and append-only audit ledger.Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceThis MCP server provides fail-closed governance for DataHub data agents by implementing a Read Context → Restricted AST Gate → Tamper-Evident Proof Pack → Native DataHub Write-Back loop. It verifies dataset identity, schema, and lineage evidence against candidate contracts, binds claims to evidence, and appends VERIFIED or BLOCKED receipts back to DataHub through the official native update_description MCP mutation.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA metadata-guided, read-only SQL analysis MCP server for DataHub that helps agents perform safe analytical queries using DataHub schema, lineage, ownership, and tags, with a deterministic planner and strict SQL safety layer against local synthetic SQLite, guaranteeing zero write or mutation operations.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAgentic data quality MCP server — runs structured validation rules against warehouses (DuckDB, BigQuery, Athena, Databricks, Postgres), diagnoses failures with LLM root cause analysis, and proposes SQL remediations. Full audit trail of every AI decision.64Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceZero-config data quality monitoring as MCP tools. Profiles a warehouse (Postgres, BigQuery, Snowflake, MySQL, DuckDB), detects anomalies, and gates CI — read-only with the connection resolved server-side, never via the model.610MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAI-driven MCP server that audits, profiles, detects schema drift, and auto-generates documentation for dbt projects, enabling natural language interaction with your dbt project's health.134MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: assess_schema_change performs a complex analysis, while list_demo_scenarios provides test scenarios. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern (assess_schema_change, list_demo_scenarios), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With only two tools, the server feels minimally scoped. While appropriate for a niche utility, the count is on the thin side, making it harder to justify a standalone server.
The core assessment functionality is present, but the server lacks any management operations (e.g., listing past assessments, retrieving specific results), which limits its coverage of the full workflow.