{
  "data": {
    "tool": {
      "category": "",
      "endpoint": "https://mcp.verificate.ai/mcp",
      "jsonUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/verificate-mcp.json",
      "kind": "mcp",
      "listed": "indexed",
      "liveUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/live/verificate-mcp.json",
      "markdownUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp.md",
      "mcpTools": {
        "check": {
          "checker": "anchor-check/1.0",
          "totalTokens": 2858,
          "counts": {
            "error": 0,
            "note": 1,
            "warn": 2
          },
          "findings": [
            {
              "rule": "TC13",
              "severity": "warn",
              "tool": "validate_artifact",
              "message": "artifact (object with no properties)",
              "fix": "Declare the properties (or additionalProperties with a schema) and the array's items."
            },
            {
              "rule": "TC13",
              "severity": "warn",
              "tool": "validate_plan",
              "message": "context (object with no properties)",
              "fix": "Declare the properties (or additionalProperties with a schema) and the array's items."
            },
            {
              "rule": "TC24",
              "severity": "note",
              "message": "1 of 5 tools have no outputSchema",
              "fix": "Declare outputSchema for tools that return structured data, and return structuredContent that matches it."
            }
          ]
        },
        "checkedAt": "2026-10-04T22:20:57Z",
        "count": 5,
        "note": "answered without the initialize handshake",
        "schemaTokens": 2858,
        "status": "ok",
        "tools": [
          {
            "name": "validate_artifact",
            "title": "Gate a deployable artifact against the Verificate production doctrine",
            "description": "Deterministic production-readiness gate for AI-built systems. Verifies the invariants that stop a system silently shipping broken: every critical component is PRESENT and LOADS, the import closure resolves (nothing assumed 'already on the box'), all runtime dependencies are declared, and health is a REAL fail-closed check. Returns approve/reject with a fix plan and ISO 27001 / ISO 5055 control evidence. Facts are gathered by the Verificate collector in your CI; the gate is the authority. Non-bypassable, fails closed. This is the control-plane sibling of validate_ai_output — code quality is one invariant; this gates the whole deployable.",
            "inputSchema": {
              "properties": {
                "artifact": {
                  "description": "Collected artifact facts: {critical_components:[{name,loads:bool}], import_closure_ok:bool, undeclared_deps:[str], health_truthful:bool}.",
                  "type": "object"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "artifact"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "annotations": {
              "destructiveHint": false,
              "idempotentHint": true,
              "openWorldHint": false,
              "readOnlyHint": true
            }
          },
          {
            "name": "validate_ai_output",
            "title": "Gate AI-written output (code or documents)",
            "description": "The merge gate for ANY AI-written output — code, documentation, reports, emails, configs: returns a binary approve/reject verdict with veto power — e.g. it rejects code calling the nonexistent stripe.Inventory API, an N+1 loop with the latency arithmetic to prove it, or a doc claiming success with no evidence. Deterministic reality gates (mock/placeholder veto, gaming and bypass detection, invented-API checks) run first and cannot be overridden; a frontier-model review (ISO/IEC 25010) then scores quality, accuracy, reliability and tech debt. In a benchmark, a frontier model reviewing alone caught reward-gaming and hallucinated APIs 0/6 times in a natural review workflow; these gates catch them deterministically on every call. Read-only: nothing is executed. Call it on every AI-generated deliverable before accepting it; use validate_plan for plans, analyze_code for an advisory report without a verdict.",
            "inputSchema": {
              "properties": {
                "ai_output": {
                  "description": "The AI-generated output to gate — source code (a diff, function or whole file, any mainstream language) or prose (documentation, a report, an email, release notes). For reliable latency keep one submission under ~15,000 characters; split larger artifacts at natural boundaries (functions, SQL statements, sections) and validate the units separately. Reviews are wall-clock bounded: an over-budget model review returns an explicit timed-out result (deterministic gates still run) rather than hanging.",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "context": {
                  "description": "Optional review context — an object like {\"language\": \"cpp\", \"scale\": \"10k req/s\"} ('language' sharpens SDK-reality checks) or a free-text sentence describing intent.",
                  "type": [
                    "object",
                    "string"
                  ]
                },
                "validation_type": {
                  "default": "code_generation",
                  "description": "What the output is: 'code_generation' (default) for source code; 'documentation', 'report', 'email', 'text', ... for prose (code-marker gates are skipped, integrity gates and the frontier review still run). Use 'report' (or 'status_report' / 'handover') for anything that CLAIMS work is done or passing: there, a completion claim with no evidence in the text is a veto. 'plan' for designs/specs.",
                  "type": "string"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "ai_output"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "outputSchema": {
              "additionalProperties": true,
              "properties": {
                "confidence": {
                  "description": "score / 100",
                  "type": "number"
                },
                "issues": {
                  "description": "Severity-ranked findings, each 'severity|category|detail' with the reasoning",
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                },
                "protection": {
                  "additionalProperties": true,
                  "description": "Deterministic gate result. A veto here is final — the model review cannot override it.",
                  "properties": {
                    "protection_score": {
                      "description": "Deterministic gate score, 0-100",
                      "type": "number"
                    },
                    "verdict": {
                      "description": "'approved' or 'rejected' from the gate layer",
                      "type": "string"
                    },
                    "vetoed": {
                      "description": "True if any veto gate failed the submission",
                      "type": "boolean"
                    },
                    "vetoed_by": {
                      "description": "Names of the gates that vetoed, e.g. ['code_reality_gate']",
                      "items": {
                        "type": "string"
                      },
                      "type": "array"
                    }
                  },
                  "type": "object"
                },
                "provider": {
                  "description": "Model that ran the deep review, or 'protection-gates-only'",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "score": {
                  "description": "Combined score 0-100 (gates fused with the model review)",
                  "type": "number"
                },
                "suggestions": {
                  "description": "Concrete fixes to reach approval",
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                },
                "valid": {
                  "description": "The binary verdict: true = approved, false = rejected",
                  "type": "boolean"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "valid",
                "score",
                "issues"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "annotations": {
              "destructiveHint": false,
              "idempotentHint": true,
              "openWorldHint": true,
              "readOnlyHint": true
            }
          },
          {
            "name": "validate_plan",
            "title": "Gate an implementation plan",
            "description": "The gate for PLANS, designs and specs — run BEFORE any code is written, the cheapest place to catch a bad design. Returns the same binary verdict shape as validate_ai_output, with findings on completeness, feasibility, performance and scalability implications, security risks and missing considerations (e.g. it rejects a plan that polls an API every 100ms per client, with the request-volume math). Read-only: nothing is executed or stored beyond the verdict. Use validate_ai_output for the code that follows.",
            "inputSchema": {
              "properties": {
                "context": {
                  "description": "Optional constraints the review should weigh, e.g. {\"system\": \"payments API\", \"scale\": \"1M users\", \"constraints\": \"PostgreSQL only\"}.",
                  "type": "object"
                },
                "plan": {
                  "description": "The implementation plan, design or spec to validate, as plain text or markdown — e.g. a numbered migration plan or an architecture sketch.",
                  "type": "string"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "plan"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "outputSchema": {
              "additionalProperties": true,
              "properties": {
                "confidence": {
                  "description": "score / 100",
                  "type": "number"
                },
                "issues": {
                  "description": "Severity-ranked findings, each 'severity|category|detail' with the reasoning",
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                },
                "protection": {
                  "additionalProperties": true,
                  "description": "Deterministic gate result. A veto here is final — the model review cannot override it.",
                  "properties": {
                    "protection_score": {
                      "description": "Deterministic gate score, 0-100",
                      "type": "number"
                    },
                    "verdict": {
                      "description": "'approved' or 'rejected' from the gate layer",
                      "type": "string"
                    },
                    "vetoed": {
                      "description": "True if any veto gate failed the submission",
                      "type": "boolean"
                    },
                    "vetoed_by": {
                      "description": "Names of the gates that vetoed, e.g. ['code_reality_gate']",
                      "items": {
                        "type": "string"
                      },
                      "type": "array"
                    }
                  },
                  "type": "object"
                },
                "provider": {
                  "description": "Model that ran the deep review, or 'protection-gates-only'",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "score": {
                  "description": "Combined score 0-100 (gates fused with the model review)",
                  "type": "number"
                },
                "suggestions": {
                  "description": "Concrete fixes to reach approval",
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                },
                "valid": {
                  "description": "The binary verdict: true = approved, false = rejected",
                  "type": "boolean"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "valid",
                "score",
                "issues"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "annotations": {
              "destructiveHint": false,
              "idempotentHint": true,
              "openWorldHint": true,
              "readOnlyHint": true
            }
          },
          {
            "name": "analyze_code",
            "title": "Advisory code deep-dive",
            "description": "Advisory deep-dive on existing code — scores and findings, deliberately NO pass/fail verdict, so it never blocks an agent. Surfaces performance hot paths, scalability cliffs, reliability gaps and tech debt with concrete latency/throughput arithmetic (e.g. 'O(n²) dedup: ~4s at 10k items'). Read-only: the code is analyzed, never executed. Use it to understand a validate_ai_output rejection or review inherited code; use validate_ai_output when you need an accept/reject decision.",
            "inputSchema": {
              "properties": {
                "analysis_type": {
                  "default": "quality",
                  "description": "Lens for the review: 'quality' (default, broad ISO/IEC 25010 pass) or a focused pass on one dimension.",
                  "enum": [
                    "quality",
                    "performance",
                    "scalability",
                    "security",
                    "tech_debt"
                  ],
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "code": {
                  "description": "The source code to analyze — a function, file or pasted excerpt.",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "language": {
                  "description": "Source language, e.g. 'python', 'typescript', 'cpp', 'sql', 'swift'. Inferred if omitted; stating it sharpens findings.",
                  "type": "string"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "code"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "outputSchema": {
              "additionalProperties": true,
              "properties": {
                "complexity": {
                  "description": "low | medium | high",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "issues": {
                  "description": "Findings as 'severity|category|detail' with supporting arithmetic",
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                },
                "provider": {
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "quality_score": {
                  "description": "0-100 advisory score for the chosen lens",
                  "type": "number"
                },
                "suggestions": {
                  "items": {
                    "type": "string"
                  },
                  "type": "array"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "quality_score",
                "issues"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "annotations": {
              "destructiveHint": false,
              "idempotentHint": true,
              "openWorldHint": true,
              "readOnlyHint": true
            }
          },
          {
            "name": "generate_code",
            "title": "Generate gated code",
            "description": "Generate code and gate it in one step: an LLM writes the implementation, then the same protection engine as validate_ai_output vets it — retrying generation when the gate rejects. If every attempt is vetoed you still receive the last attempt, clearly marked validated:false with the gate findings — rejected code is never presented as clean. Generation runs on our infrastructure; nothing executes in your environment.",
            "inputSchema": {
              "properties": {
                "language": {
                  "default": "python",
                  "description": "Target language for the generated code, e.g. 'python' (default), 'typescript', 'go', 'sql'.",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "max_tokens": {
                  "default": 4000,
                  "description": "Generation budget. The default 4000 fits most functions/classes; raise it for multi-file scaffolds.",
                  "maximum": 32768,
                  "minimum": 256,
                  "type": "integer"
                },
                "prompt": {
                  "description": "What to build, with any constraints worth enforcing — e.g. 'a rate-limited retry decorator with exponential backoff, stdlib only'.",
                  "type": "string"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "prompt"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "outputSchema": {
              "additionalProperties": true,
              "properties": {
                "attempts": {
                  "description": "Generation attempts before approval or give-up",
                  "type": "integer"
                },
                "code": {
                  "description": "The generated implementation",
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "generated": {
                  "description": "False only when no provider returned code",
                  "type": "boolean"
                },
                "protection": {
                  "additionalProperties": true,
                  "description": "Deterministic gate result. A veto here is final — the model review cannot override it.",
                  "properties": {
                    "protection_score": {
                      "description": "Deterministic gate score, 0-100",
                      "type": "number"
                    },
                    "verdict": {
                      "description": "'approved' or 'rejected' from the gate layer",
                      "type": "string"
                    },
                    "vetoed": {
                      "description": "True if any veto gate failed the submission",
                      "type": "boolean"
                    },
                    "vetoed_by": {
                      "description": "Names of the gates that vetoed, e.g. ['code_reality_gate']",
                      "items": {
                        "type": "string"
                      },
                      "type": "array"
                    }
                  },
                  "type": "object"
                },
                "provider": {
                  "type": "string"
                },
                "validated": {
                  "description": "True if the protection gates approved the final attempt; false means the gate findings in 'protection' explain the veto",
                  "type": "boolean"
                },
                "validation_score": {
                  "description": "Deterministic gate score, 0-100",
                  "type": "number"
                }
              },
              "required": [
                "generated"
              ],
              "type": "object"
            },
            "annotations": {
              "destructiveHint": false,
              "idempotentHint": false,
              "openWorldHint": true,
              "readOnlyHint": true
            }
          }
        ]
      },
      "name": "Verificate MCP",
      "note": "Indexed from the official MCP registry: facts and our own checks, not reviewed, so no score, grade or rank.",
      "packages": null,
      "pageJsonUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp.json",
      "popularity": {
        "githubStars": 1
      },
      "registryName": "ai.verificate/mcp",
      "remotes": [
        {
          "type": "streamable-http",
          "url": "https://mcp.verificate.ai/mcp"
        }
      ],
      "repository": "https://github.com/Verificate-Dev/verificate-mcp-quickstart",
      "reviewed": false,
      "slug": "verificate-mcp",
      "source": "the official MCP registry",
      "sourceUrl": "https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io/v0.1/servers?search=ai.verificate/mcp",
      "summary": "Agentic code review, no signup to try: reality gates + frontier-model review, with veto.",
      "updatedAt": "2026-08-01T08:03:02Z",
      "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp",
      "vendor": "verificate.ai",
      "vendorUrl": "https://verificate.ai/mcp",
      "version": "1.8.7",
      "websiteUrl": "https://verificate.ai/mcp",
      "where": "hosted",
      "why": [
        "vendor"
      ]
    }
  },
  "kind": "anchor.page",
  "links": {
    "api": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json",
    "html": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp",
    "json": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp.json",
    "llms": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt",
    "markdown": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp.md",
    "slim": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp.min.md"
  },
  "markdown": "# Verificate MCP\n\n\u003e Indexed, not reviewed: facts from the official MCP registry and our own checks. No score, grade or rank, and not in the rankings until the panel reviews it. How the index works: https://www.anchorterminal.com/indexed/\n\n- Kind: MCP server, by verificate.ai (https://verificate.ai/mcp)\n- Listed because: It's published in the registry under verificate.ai, a namespace the registry only gives to whoever proves they control that domain.\n- What the official MCP registry says: Agentic code review, no signup to try: reality gates + frontier-model review, with veto.\n\n## Facts\n\n- MCP registry: `ai.verificate/mcp` 1.8.7\n- Endpoint: https://mcp.verificate.ai/mcp (streamable HTTP)\n- Source: https://github.com/Verificate-Dev/verificate-mcp-quickstart\n- Website: https://verificate.ai/mcp\n- GitHub stars: 1\n- Registry entry updated: 2026-08-01\n\n## Tools\n\n- Tools it lists (5, about 2,858 tokens of context, `tools/list` without credentials, checked 2026-10-04 22:20 UTC):\n  - `validate_artifact` (read-only): Deterministic production-readiness gate for AI-built systems. Verifies the invariants that stop a system silently shipping broken: every critical component is…\n  - `validate_ai_output` (read-only): The merge gate for ANY AI-written output — code, documentation, reports, emails, configs: returns a binary approve/reject verdict with veto power — e.g. it…\n  - `validate_plan` (read-only): The gate for PLANS, designs and specs — run BEFORE any code is written, the cheapest place to catch a bad design. Returns the same binary verdict shape as…\n  - `analyze_code` (read-only): Advisory deep-dive on existing code — scores and findings, deliberately NO pass/fail verdict, so it never blocks an agent. Surfaces performance hot paths,…\n  - `generate_code` (read-only): Generate code and gate it in one step: an LLM writes the implementation, then the same protection engine as validate_ai_output vets it — retrying generation…\n- How its tools read to an agent (0 errors, 2 warnings, 1 note, about 2,858 tokens; rules at https://www.anchorterminal.com/check.md; not part of the score):\n  - warn TC13 validate_artifact: artifact (object with no properties)\n  - warn TC13 validate_plan: context (object with no properties)\n  - note TC24 server: 1 of 5 tools have no outputSchema\n\n- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/verificate-mcp.json\n- Being indexed says nothing about quality, and nobody can pay for it. Ask for a review: https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#claiming\n",
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-05",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.3",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  },
  "page": {
    "breadcrumbs": [
      {
        "name": "Home",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/"
      },
      {
        "name": "Terminal",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/"
      },
      {
        "name": "Indexed",
        "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/indexed/"
      },
      {
        "name": "Verificate MCP",
        "url": ""
      }
    ],
    "description": "Verificate MCP, an MCP server by verificate.ai, listed from the official MCP registry. Indexed, not reviewed: facts and our own checks, no score or ranking. Agentic code review, no signup to try: reality gates + frontier-model review, with veto.",
    "facts": [
      "not reviewed",
      "not ranked",
      "facts only"
    ],
    "h1": "Verificate MCP",
    "image": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/assets/og/indexed.png",
    "path": "/tools/verificate-mcp",
    "published": "",
    "section": "indexed",
    "title": "Verificate MCP: MCP server, indexed from the official MCP registry",
    "toc": null,
    "updated": "2026-10-05",
    "url": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/verificate-mcp"
  },
  "tokens": {
    "markdown": 800,
    "slim": 730
  },
  "version": 1
}