No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 20 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: creation vs. evidence vs. status vs. topology. However, `verify_upstream` and `invalidate_upstream` are closely related (opposite actions on ancestors), and `update_status` could be seen as a general-purpose override that overlaps with the more targeted status-changing tools, though the descriptions help differentiate them.
The majority of tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_hypotheses, add_edges, record_evidence). A few exceptions like `what_would_change_my_mind` and `get_dag_context` break the pattern but are still understandable. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 20 tools covering a complex domain (hypothesis management, evidence, claims, conflicts, and workspace introspection), the count is justified. Each tool serves a distinct operational need, from low-level CRUD (create_hypotheses, add_edges) to high-level analysis (what_would_change_my_mind, generate_learning_path). The set is comprehensive without being bloated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: creating hypotheses, managing evidence, handling leases, updating statuses, resolving conflicts, and reporting goal progress. Critical gaps like missing delete operations are intentionally avoided (hypotheses are retained for auditability), and read-only introspection tools provide a complete view of the belief state.