A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceA multi-agent system that autonomously analyzes code, proves bugs with formal certificates, generates repairs, and validates patches, all over the Model Context Protocol.
7 npm
MIT
code-relay-mcp
by zarcherlot
Related Servers
Alternatives to code-relay-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables coding agents to identify the least-proven claim in code after edits and receive a focused repair packet with exact source anchors, missing proof, reproducer, and a done condition, supporting iterative verify/fix loops.3MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to safely inspect, edit, and test code within a bounded repository environment to solve software engineering tasks and verify fixes.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents to keep persistent, verifiable memory of a codebase, including the reasons behind code, prior rejected approaches, and invariants, anchored to the code and carried along as the code moves.-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceDeterministic, offline root-cause analysis for coding agents: find the commit that introduced a bug, and verify a fix is complete before committing.116MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceGives AI coding agents a closed-loop verification cycle for visual, audio, and video output, with enforcement hooks that make verification mandatory.Apache 2.0
TDQS
B3/5.0
Scored across 10 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct actions and resources, such as bind_project, publish_runbook, and fetch_receipt. The main ambiguity is between status and watcher_status, though their descriptions clarify that one covers runbook/receipt status and the other legacy watcher state.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like create_checkpoint_invite and publish_runbook. However, doctor and status are bare nouns, and analyze is a bare verb, creating a mixed convention that is readable but not consistently patterned.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain. Each tool appears to cover a meaningful part of the project binding, checkpoint, and runbook workflow without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The runbook and receipt workflow is well covered with publish, status, fetch, and analyze. However, lifecycle gaps exist: there is no unbind_project, no checkpoint leave/revoke tool, and no way to start the legacy watcher, only to stop it.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues