formal-proof-mcp
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@formal-proof-mcpCheck theorem.lean for Lean errors"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
formal-proof-mcp
Your agent says it proved the theorem. Did anything actually check?
Six verification tools over the Model Context Protocol, with one invariant running through all of them:
A result that was not checked is never returned as a result that passed.
Not yet on PyPI. The command below is the one that works today. It installs from this repository, pinned to a tag.
pip install "git+https://github.com/nickharris808/formal-proof-mcp@v0.1.0"pip install formal-proof-mcp is the intended command once the name is published. It 404s today, which is why it is not the first step above. The tag is pinned rather than @main so a reader installs the exact code this README documents.
Why this exists
Coding agents are fluent about correctness. They will tell you a proof went through, a bound holds, a graph is deadlock-free — and the failure mode is not that they lie, it is that nothing on the other end ever ran. A missing Lean toolchain, an uninstalled dependency, an empty input: each returns something, and "something" reads as success.
So every response here carries status, and the three values are kept strictly apart:
status | meaning |
| the check ran and passed |
| the check ran and failed — with the real error attached, for the repair loop |
| the check could not run. Explicitly not a pass. |
An agent that reads "no Lean toolchain installed" as "no errors found" will confidently assert a proof it never checked. This server makes that confusion impossible to express.
Related MCP server: prova-mcp
The check that matters most
lake build exits 0 on a development riddled with sorry. Lean accepts the placeholder, compiles
happily, and reports success. Compiling is necessary and nowhere near sufficient — only
#print axioms reveals what a theorem actually rests on:
$ formal-proof-mcp --selftest
ok clean axioms accepted
ok sorryAx caught
ok empty audit FAILS rather than passing quietly
ok 0-of-250 bounded at ~1.2%
ok acyclic graph certified
ok cycle caught with its path
ok non-decreasing rank caught
ok unknown tool fails loudly
ok tools/list returns all six
lean toolchain: present
selftest passed.Note line 3. An axiom audit over empty input fails. A coverage tool that cannot cover anything must never pass quietly — that is how an entire corpus goes unaudited while CI stays green.
Install
Not yet on PyPI.
pip install formal-proof-mcpis the intended install once published; until then install from the repository — it works exactly the same:pip install git+https://github.com/nickharris808/formal-proof-mcp@main
pip install formal-proof-mcp # zero dependencies
pip install "formal-proof-mcp[siblings]" # adds cert_verify and residency_check30-second quickstart
formal-proof-mcp --selftest # prove each tool actually fires
formal-proof-mcp --list-tools # the ten tools
formal-proof-mcp # serve MCP over stdioWire it into Claude Desktop or Cursor:
{
"mcpServers": {
"formal-proof": { "command": "formal-proof-mcp" }
}
}The ten tools
tool | what it answers |
| Does this Lean 4 source compile? On failure, returns the compiler's own error so the agent repairs its proof instead of asserting one. |
| What does the theorem actually rest on? Catches |
| What does a k-of-n record support? Exact one-sided Clopper–Pearson. "It passed every time" is not a bound. |
| Can this wait-for relation wedge? Returns the actual cycle, and optionally checks a strictly decreasing rank. |
| Is this |
| Could a cross-tenant cache probe on this model even be interpreted? |
Added in 0.2 — the rest of the portfolio
Each of these delegates to a sibling package. If that package is not installed the result is
unavailable, never ok — an agent reading "not installed" as "checked and fine" is the exact
failure this server exists to prevent, and a missing optional dependency is the likeliest way to
produce it. There is a test that blocks the import and asserts the status.
tool | question | needs |
| can this experiment's decision rule come out both ways? |
|
| how many states must the system distinguish? |
|
| exactly how many states does removing this check admit? |
|
| run every applicable verifier over a tree, aggregate to one verdict |
|
Not yet on PyPI.
pip install formal-proof-mcpis the intended install once published; until then install from the repository — it works exactly the same:pip install git+https://github.com/nickharris808/formal-proof-mcp@main
pip install "formal-proof-mcp[portfolio]" # the server plus all fourprereg_check is the one to reach for first. An agent about to run an experiment can be told,
before it burns a GPU hour, that its rule cannot fail:
{"decision_rule": "argmax_flips > 0",
"metrics": {"argmax_flips": {"type": "integer", "lo": 0, "hi": 0}}}{"status": "failed", "verdict": "UNFALSIFIABLE",
"explanation": "THE FINDING CAN NEVER BE REPORTED. ... The run is guaranteed to return the null
before any data is collected."}Worked example — driving it the way a client does
Pipe JSON-RPC in, read JSON-RPC out:
$ printf '%s\n' \
'{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"initialize","params":{}}' \
'{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":2,"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"gridlock_check",
"arguments":{"edges":[["a","b"],["b","c"],["c","a"]]}}}' \
| formal-proof-mcpinitialize -> {'name': 'formal-proof-mcp', 'version': '0.1.0'} 2024-11-05
id=2 isError=True status=failed wait-for cycle: a -> b -> c -> aAnd the audit that catches an assumed theorem:
id=2 isError=True status=failed
1 theorem(s) depend on sorryAx: these are ASSUMED, not proved, and the development
still compilesisError is how the agent learns a check failed rather than merely returned, and the cycle
comes back as a path so the answer is actionable rather than a bare boolean.
Honest limits
lean_checkneeds a Lean toolchain. Without one it returnsunavailable, never a pass. Install via elan.cert_verifyandresidency_checkdelegate tosignoff-certandkvleak. Absent, they reportunavailablewith thepip installline — they never fake a verdict.The axiom allowlist is a policy choice, not a law.
Classical.choiceis permitted by default; tighten it with theallowedargument if your development is constructive.gridlock_checkreasons about the graph you hand it. It cannot know whether that graph faithfully models your system, which is the part only you can supply.No auto-repair loop is included. The server returns the compiler error; the retry is the agent's to run. An earlier draft of this README promised a bounded repair loop, which the code does not implement — the error trace is what ships.
No SDK, by design. MCP is JSON-RPC 2.0 over stdio; implementing it directly keeps the dependency count at zero and the whole transport auditable in one short file.
The commercial edition
This server verifies and reports. It does not gate.
The gate corpus, the automated repair mechanisms, and the certificate-issuing faucet are the
licensed offering — an operator who wants a failed check to block a deploy is performing the
step this package deliberately does not. See CLAIMS-MAP.md for exactly where
that line sits.
Reading is free. Enforcing is licensed.
Licence
Apache-2.0 · CLEAN — exposes a toolchain and reports; implements no filed apparatus.
Honest scope — what a passing run proves, and what it does not
The two halves are inseparable. A tool that states only the first half is marketing.
It proves:
whether Lean source compiles, and what axioms a theorem actually rests on (including
sorryAx)whether a wait-for graph can wedge, and an exact k-of-n bound
explicitly, when a check COULD NOT RUN —
unavailableis never merged intook
It does NOT prove:
that a theorem says what its name or docstring suggests.
#print axiomsproves the dependency set is clean, never that the statement is the one you wantedthat a passing
lake buildmeans anything — a development full ofsorrycompiles and exits 0anything when the toolchain is absent; it reports
unavailableand stops
Full CLI reference, generated from --help: docs/CLI.md
Contributing
Bug reports and pull requests welcome — see CONTRIBUTING.md.
A false accusation is a defect of equal severity to a missed detection. If this tool flags something correct, open an issue with the input and the verdict you expected: over-refusal trains people to bypass refusals, which destroys the tool.
Citation metadata is in CITATION.cff.
The rest of the portfolio
25 artifacts, one idea: a measurement you cannot check is a press release. Every tool here reports; none of them gates.
Tools
how often does a verifier pass input it could not check? | |
run the whole portfolio over your repo — the weakest leg, never the mean | |
what must your system remember? an exact lower bound | |
a proof kernel for your coding agent ← you are here | |
exactly how many states does removing this check admit? | |
certify a wait-for relation cannot wedge | |
measure your CI's escape rate | |
cross-tenant leak scanner | |
model-substitution detector with a measured FPR | |
refuses to seal a plan whose conclusion is already fixed | |
the whole portfolio as one CI check, with SARIF | |
fail the build when the proof stops matching | |
re-derive admission decisions offline | |
certificates that carry their own false-pass bound | |
a token count both parties can recompute |
Benchmarks — each recomputes one of our own published numbers from its certificate
how many broken kernels does your oracle admit? | |
recompute our economics headline | |
recompute our isolation figures |
Datasets
32 inputs a verifier must NOT pass | |
per-workload reuse accounting + the closed form | |
isolation observations, uninterpretable rows included | |
precision-labelled logprobs with a negative control |
Try it in a browser — no install, no GPU
ten claims we took back | |
the residency calculator | |
paste a wait-for graph, see the cycle |
Documentation
Everything above, explained in one place: https://nickharris808.github.io/evidence-docs/ —
the tutorial,
what this proves and what it does not,
and a CLI reference generated by
running --help on every published command.
The commercial edition
Everything above is measure-only and Apache-2.0: it tells you what is true and never acts on it. The enforcement side — binding a partition key at the admission decision, the compiled gate corpus, and the certificate-issuing faucet — is covered by filed patents and licensed separately.
Reading is free. Enforcing is licensed.
This server cannot be installed
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides fact-checking capabilities and truth anchoring for AI agents using verified data sources.Last updatedMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes the Prova reasoning verifier, enabling AI agents to verify their own reasoning and kernel-check Lean 4 proofs before outputting answers.Last updated5MIT
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that enforces fail-closed deterministic checks, independent refute-first review, and tamper-evident hash-chained receipts for AI agent outputs before claiming completion.Last updated43MIT

Agent-Townofficial
Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceA neutral verification court for AI tools that ranks MCP servers by executing them against ground truth and recording results. Enables agents to consult execution records, contribute verdicts, and challenge claims.Last updatedApache 2.0
Related MCP Connectors
A paid remote MCP for ZeroID, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage logs, and audit-ready JSON.
A paid remote MCP for agent memory MCP, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage logs, and audit-re
A paid remote MCP for hosted MCP server, built to return verdicts, receipts, usage logs, and audit-r
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nickharris808/formal-proof-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server