A
licenseC
qualityC
maintenanceEnables acceptance gates for AI coding-agent runs by recording evidence, running deterministic validation, applying a quality gate, and rendering auditable outcomes.
7
Apache 2.0
TruthGate
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., "@TruthGateVerify my agent's last response"
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.
TruthGate for Agents
TruthGate is a fail-closed preflight, approval, evidence, and verification runtime for Hermes, OpenClaw, n8n agents, and custom LLM systems.
It does not promise zero hallucinations. It prevents unsupported output from being treated as verified completion.
v0.2 security model
Server-owned policy cannot be weakened by request payloads.
API routes require a bearer key.
High-risk approvals are HMAC-signed, task-bound, expiring, and single-use.
External tool traces can require HMAC signatures.
Evidence IDs, citations, trust, claim coverage, tool success, output text, and artifact hashes receive deterministic checks.
Evidence is scanned for common prompt-injection patterns before generation.
A genuinely different verifier model is required by default.
Audit events avoid raw prompts, tokens, and secrets.
Verified memory is deduplicated and retains task provenance.
Provider requests use bounded retries and sanitized errors.
Related MCP server: ATLAS MCP
Install
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"
cp .env.example .env
truthgate-apiOpen http://127.0.0.1:8787/docs. All /v1/* routes require:
Authorization: Bearer <TRUTHGATE_API_KEY>Production startup rejects the included development secrets.
Hermes MCP integration
TruthGate exposes three narrow MCP tools:
truthgate_preflighttruthgate_verifytruthgate_authorize
Use integrations/hermes/config.example.yaml to configure the stdio server in
~/.hermes/config.yaml, then run /reload-mcp in Hermes. Copy the companion
integrations/hermes/SKILL.md into your Hermes skills directory if you want
Hermes to follow the gate workflow consistently.
Human approval
Preflight returns task_id and task_digest. A human can issue a short-lived
approval:
truthgate approve \
--task-id TASK_ID \
--task-digest TASK_DIGEST \
--risk-level highThe token does not authorize a different task contract and cannot be consumed twice.
Deterministic rules
Requests can attach server-validated rules:
evidence_existstool_succeededoutput_containsartifact_sha256
Model verification is never enough by itself. A final result is verified only
when the independent verifier and all deterministic gates pass.
API
GET /healthPOST /v1/preflightPOST /v1/verifyPOST /v1/runPOST /v1/authorizeGET /v1/memoryGET /v1/audit/{task_id}
Hard limitation
MCP cannot intercept every Hermes built-in tool result. Signed traces require a trusted host wrapper or a native Hermes tool-result hook. Without that hook, TruthGate should verify knowledge work and explicit evidence, but must not claim cryptographic proof of every action Hermes performs.
Available Tools
3 toolstruthgate_authorizeC
Consume a human-issued approval immediately before a risky action.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| task_digest | Yes | ||
| approval_token | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool consumes an approval, implying a state change, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether the action is irreversible. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details about parameters and behavior. It is not too wordy, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, an output schema exists to define the response, but the description does not mention the output format or any preconditions. For a tool with three required parameters and no sibling usage guidance, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what task_id, task_digest, or approval_token mean. The description adds zero value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool consumes a human-issued approval before a risky action, indicating its role in the authorization flow. It distinguishes from siblings (preflight, verify) by focusing on the final approval step, though it could be more explicit about the exact resource being consumed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only implies usage 'immediately before a risky action' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the siblings truthgate_preflight or truthgate_verify. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer proper context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
truthgate_preflightC
Compile and gate a task before Hermes uses external tools.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| evidence_json | No | [] | |
| approval_token | No | ||
| success_criteria_json | No | [] |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'Compile and gate' is vague without further context on what happens to the task.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema present but unmentioned, the description fails to cover essential context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters (task, context, task_id, etc.). This is a critical gap for a tool with multiple parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the action ('compile and gate') and resource ('a task') with context ('before Hermes uses external tools'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying it's a preparatory step, but could be more explicit about what 'compile and gate' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings 'truthgate_verify' or 'truthgate_authorize'. The description does not provide exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
truthgate_verifyC
Verify Hermes' final candidate against evidence and tool traces.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload_json | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior (e.g., read-only, destructive). For a verification tool, it should indicate if it modifies state or requires specific access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with minimal noise, but it is too brief and lacks structure. Some detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter, no output schema details provided, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the output represents or error handling. The tool's completeness is insufficient for a verification task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'payload_json' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what the payload should contain or its role in verification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool verifies 'Hermes' final candidate' against evidence and tool traces, indicating a specific verb and resource. However, 'Hermes' and 'candidate' are domain-specific terms not explained, reducing clarity. It distinguishes from siblings by implying a final verification step, but not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (truthgate_preflight, truthgate_authorize). The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
v0.2.0- First observed
truthgate_authorize - First observed
truthgate_preflight - First observed
truthgate_verify
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role: preflight prepares tasks before tool use, verify checks final outputs, and authorize handles human approval. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'truthgate_verb' pattern with clear action verbs (preflight, verify, authorize), providing a predictable naming scheme.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is on the smaller side but suitable for a specialized gatekeeping server that handles pre-use, post-use, and approval steps.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the key stages of the gating workflow: pre-check, verification, and authorization. Minor gaps like handling verification failures are not critical.
Maintenance
ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Pre-execution governance for AI agents. Deterministic PASS/FAIL/REVIEW verdicts, replayable proof.
Deterministic runtime safety for AI agents: scan PII, gate tool actions, verify LLM output.
Preflight, approve, and prove consequential agent actions with signed evidence and x402 tools.
Runtime permission, approval, and audit layer for AI agent tool execution.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceSafe, reliable, and verifiable execution for the Model Context Protocol, enabling governed tasks with planning, capability approval, side-effect verification, and evidence receipts.158Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides a secure MCP boundary for AI agents, intercepting and validating tool calls, redacting secrets, and requiring human approval for sensitive actions with a tamper-evident audit trail.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables controlled AI-agent access to enterprise-shaped tools with a deny-by-default gated write path, human approval, dry-run execution, and append-only audit logging.1-
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/ay7627514-dotcom/truthgate'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server