Which integrations are available for this server?

Integrates with LibreOffice for optional DOCX rendering, enabling visual envelope checks in contract verification workflows.

How do I use artifactdiff-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@artifactdiff-mcp Verify the contract change against the frozen policy" 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.

de en es ja ko ru zh

artifactdiff-mcp

by wfengq

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

ArtifactDiff

A contract change verification gate for humans and AI agents.

Prove that an AI agent changed only the Office/PDF contract terms you authorized — semantically, visually, and cryptographically — before the document is delivered.

ArtifactDiff is local-first and offline. It turns a requested edit such as “change the payment window from 30 days to 45 days” into a frozen policy, verifies the candidate, and writes an immutable Review Bundle that both humans and agents can inspect.

Project status: 0.1.0 alpha. The contract-safe core and signed Golden Path are implemented and covered by more than 900 automated tests. Packaging and public release automation are still in progress.

What it catches

Candidate	Verdict	Delivery gate
Only the exact authorized clause occurrence changed	PASS	May proceed
The edit is semantically allowed but has an unexplained layout change	REVIEW	Blocked until a human approves that finding
A party, amount, date, signature, seal, attachment, or other protected content changed	FAIL	Blocked and not approvable

ArtifactDiff is deliberately fail-closed. Review remains blocking by default and a FAIL finding cannot be approved away.

Related MCP server: Proof Layer MCP

Three-minute Golden Path

Prerequisites: Python 3.11+ and a local checkout of this repository. The demo uses only synthetic contracts and makes no network request after dependencies are installed.

python -m venv .venv
# Activate .venv using your shell, then:
python -m pip install -e ".[dev]"
python scripts/run_contract_golden_path.py --output build/contract-golden-path
python -m json.tool build/contract-golden-path/summary.json

The run creates three independently verified, Ed25519-signed Review Bundles:

authorized    raw=pass    effective=pass
review        raw=review  effective=review
unauthorized  raw=fail    effective=fail

The review case stays blocked. To demonstrate the signed event-chain transition with an explicitly simulated synthetic human reviewer, use a different output directory:

python scripts/run_contract_golden_path.py --output build/contract-golden-path-approved --approve-review

--approve-review is demo-only. Real approvals remain interactive human actions through artifactdiff review or artifactdiff approve; agents cannot approve their own findings. See the Golden Path walkthrough for the generated files and privacy boundaries.

The workflow

Human instruction
      │
      ▼
contract-safe policy ── freeze + optional Ed25519 authorization
      │
      ▼
controlled agent edit session
      │
      ▼
semantic rules + protected entities + visual envelope
      │
      ├── PASS ───────────────────────────────► deliver
      ├── REVIEW ─► signed per-finding review ─► deliver or reject
      └── FAIL ───────────────────────────────► reject
                          │
                          ▼
                 immutable Review Bundle

The Review Bundle is the system of record. The local review desk is only an authenticated loopback interface over that bundle.

Human and automation interfaces

The same application boundary powers every interface:

CLI: create/validate/seal policies, open controlled sessions, verify changes, inspect findings, approve findings, and verify or pack bundles.
Local review desk: inspect a bundle and sign one finding at a time without sending contracts or private keys to browser JavaScript.
MCP: bounded inspect/draft/validate/local-verify tools for AI agents, with separate input and output roots and no approval or verified-signing capability.
Offline HTML: portable human review reports linked to verified facts.

artifactdiff --help
artifactdiff policy --help
artifactdiff verify --help
artifactdiff review path/to/review-bundle

For an MCP host, configure absolute, path-separator-delimited roots before starting the stdio server:

ARTIFACTDIFF_MCP_INPUT_ROOTS=/absolute/contracts
ARTIFACTDIFF_MCP_OUTPUT_ROOTS=/absolute/artifactdiff-output
artifactdiff-mcp

MCP intentionally cannot approve findings or perform verified signing.

Why this is not another PDF diff

Ordinary document diff	ArtifactDiff
Shows everything that changed	Proves whether changes match a pre-authorized instruction
Text or pixels are the final result	Semantic, protected-entity, occurrence, metadata, and visual rules combine into one gate
A screenshot/report is the evidence	Content-addressed Review Bundle with policy, facts, verdict, evidence, signatures, and append-only decisions
Designed only for a person looking at two files	CLI, Python, MCP, offline report, and human review desk share one truth model
“Looks fine” may pass	REVIEW and unavailable evidence block by default

Security and privacy model

Local-first and offline; no account or cloud service is required.
contract-safe is enabled by default, with no implicit authorization.
Exact expected edits are bound to their clause and occurrence.
Parties, money, currencies, dates, durations, percentages, headers, footers, signatures, seals, and attachments are protected by default.
Offline Ed25519 is the core trust mechanism; enterprise identity can be added through adapters later.
Evidence defaults to minimal; full is explicit and sealed is encrypted for named recipients.
MCP responses are bounded and do not return full contracts, page images, or key material.

Read the approved verification-gate design and the Plan 4.5 acceptance record for the full trust and verdict model.

Current format support

PDF → PDF
DOCX → DOCX
DOCX → PDF
English, Chinese, and bilingual contract structure
Optional DOCX rendering through LibreOffice; PDF rendering is local

Development

python -m pip install -e ".[dev]"
python -m pytest -q

The repository currently contains unit, integration, tamper, CLI, MCP, review-desk, cross-format, and signed Golden Path acceptance coverage.

Next milestones

Reproducible public synthetic corpus and zero-false-pass gate
GitHub Action for binary-document pull request review
Demo media and downloadable example Review Bundle
Schemas, threat model, SBOM, provenance, and signed alpha release
Plugin boundaries for enterprise parsers, renderers, signing, encryption, and storage

ArtifactDiff is being built around one narrow promise: when an agent edits a contract, you can prove exactly what it was allowed to change — and that it changed nothing else.

Available Tools

10 tools

compare_documentsD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No
`visual`	No
`after_path`	Yes
`output_dir`	No
`before_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

draft_contract_policyD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	Yes
`anchor`	Yes
`before`	Yes
`heading`	Yes
`rule_id`	Yes
`clause_label`	Yes
`ancestor_path`	No
`baseline_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_review_findingD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`finding_id`	Yes
`bundle_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

inspect_contractD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

inspect_documentD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`force`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_review_findingsD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`bundle_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

seal_local_policyD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output_path`	Yes
`policy_path`	Yes
`baseline_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

validate_contract_policyD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`policy_path`	Yes
`baseline_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

verify_contract_changeD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`visual`	No
`output_path`	Yes
`baseline_path`	Yes
`candidate_path`	Yes
`sealed_policy_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

verify_review_bundleD

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bundle_path`	Yes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

TDQS

D1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Tool has no description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness1/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Tool has no description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has no description.

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?

Tool has no description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool has no description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tool has no description.

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.

10 tool updatesv0.1.0Aug 25, 2026
- First observedcompare_documents
- First observeddraft_contract_policy
- First observedget_review_finding
- First observedinspect_contract
- First observedinspect_document
- First observedlist_review_findings
- First observedseal_local_policy
- First observedvalidate_contract_policy
- First observedverify_contract_change
- First observedverify_review_bundle

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes several pairs with ambiguous boundaries: inspect_document vs inspect_contract likely overlap, and compare_documents vs verify_contract_change seem to address similar tasks. Without descriptions, an agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to call for a given operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare, inspect, draft, validate, seal, verify, list, get). Consistency is high and follows a predictable convention.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is within the ideal range for a domain covering document comparison and contract policy management. The count is well-scoped with no obvious bloat.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows for contract policy drafting/validation/sealing and review finding retrieval are covered. However, there is no tool for listing or managing documents/contracts, and the generic artifact diffing implied by the server name is thin, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

governance-platform A
ai.geodesiclabs
Pre-execution governance for AI agents. Deterministic PASS/FAIL/REVIEW verdicts, replayable proof.
AI & Machine Learning Testing & QA Tools Monitoring
373
Ambr A
io.github.getambr
Ricardian contracts for AI agents — dual-format, SHA-256 bound, legible by construction.
Legal & Compliance Autonomous Agents Blockchain
62
gateway B
ai.duvera
Governed AI actions with signed, verifiable receipts: free keyless reads, human-approved writes.
Security Autonomous Agents
522
InfraPulse A
ai.infrapulse
AI agent infrastructure for discovery, authorization, execution, identity, and signed receipts.
Agent Orchestration Developer Tools
61

Related MCP Servers

WETH
Blockchain Cryptocurrency
ayushkumar2601
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI agents to analyze Ethereum wallets, simulate transactions, and draft transfers with deterministic policy and risk scoring, requiring human approval before on-chain execution.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-08 09:35 UTC)
2
ISC
Proof Layer MCP
Security Autonomous Agents
World-999-Labs
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides cryptographic governance receipts for AI agents, enabling pre-execution evaluation and signed verdicts (EXECUTE/BLOCK/REVIEW/SHADOW) with offline-verifiable audit trails.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-03 23:16 UTC)
MIT
Decapod Intent Kernel
Autonomous Agents Agent Orchestration
clauxel
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to create intent contracts, check boundaries, record completions, and export receipts for structured agent workflows
Updated 3 months ago (2026-05-27 16:09 UTC)
-
@sequesign/mcp
Autonomous Agents Security
Sequesign
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Enables AI agents to create cryptographically verifiable receipts of their delegated work, with capabilities for multi-party approval and offline verification.
Updated 17 days ago (2026-08-21 03:03 UTC)
11
162
Apache 2.0

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/wfengq/artifactdiff'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server