Skip to main content
Glama
temurkhan13

openclaw-output-vetter-mcp

by temurkhan13

Related Servers

Alternatives to openclaw-output-vetter-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      A zero-cost, fully local MCP server that grounds AI assistants in verified web text, reducing hallucinations by ~80% by forcing answers only from fetched sources.
      1
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP-native agent evaluation and observability server. Log traces, evaluate output quality with 12 built-in rules (PII detection, prompt injection, cost thresholds), and track agent costs. Real-time dashboard, OTel-compatible spans. Self-hosted, MIT licensed.
      9
      1,128 npm
      9
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that lets any AI agent evaluate RAG outputs -- faithfulness scoring, hallucination detection, and retrieval quality metrics -- with zero API keys, using MCP sampling.
      6
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server that lets coding agents test AI agents. Create YAML test cases, snapshot golden baselines, check for regressions, and generate visual reports all from inside Claude Code or any MCP-compatible tool. Works with LangGraph, CrewAI, OpenAI, Claude, Mistral, and any HTTP API.
      10
      58 npm
      704 PyPI
      136
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides fact-checking capabilities and truth anchoring for AI agents using verified data sources.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for AI compliance auditing. Scores agent outputs for hallucination liability under the EU AI Act, issues verifiable compliance stamps, and tracks audit history by agent.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of output vetting: code exception swallowing, transcript review, action outcome verification, and response grounding. No two tools overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: find_swallowed_exceptions, review_transcript, verify_action_outcome, verify_response_grounding. The verbs are descriptive and the pattern is uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    With four tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a critical vetting check without unnecessary bloat or gaps. The count is appropriate for a specialized vetting server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the main failure modes mentioned (exception swallowing, unverified claims, action misreports, hallucinated responses). Minor gaps might include verifying tool call correctness or security issues, but the set is reasonably complete for its intended domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessSyncing