Back to Browse

Leanforge MCP Server

Developer ToolsUse Caution3.3MCP RegistryLocal
Free

Server data from the Official MCP Registry

Lean 4 theorem prover MCP: automated proof search, mathlib integration, job management

About

Lean 4 theorem prover MCP: automated proof search, mathlib integration, job management

Security Report

3.3
Use Caution3.3High Risk

The server is a plausible Lean 4 proof-search tool. Its main concerns are the web backend, which has no authentication and exposes an unauthenticated POST /api/shutdown that can kill the process, combined with CORS that allows LAN and tailnet origins. The skill resource resolver also accepts unvalidated path input, and LLM-generated Lean code is compiled without sandboxing, so the score stays below 7.0. Supply chain analysis found 9 known vulnerabilities in dependencies (0 critical, 4 high severity).

16 files analyzed · 18 issues found

Security scores are indicators to help you make informed decisions, not guarantees. Always review permissions before connecting any MCP server.

Permissions Required

This plugin requests these system permissions. Most are normal for its category.

process_spawn

Check that this permission is expected for this type of plugin.

File System Read

Reads files on your machine. Normal for tools that analyze or process local data.

File System Write

Writes or modifies files on your machine. Check that this is expected for the tool.

HTTP Network Access

Connects to external APIs or services over the internet.

env_vars

Check that this permission is expected for this type of plugin.

database

Check that this permission is expected for this type of plugin.

system_info

Check that this permission is expected for this type of plugin.

How to Install

Add this to your MCP configuration file:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "io-github-sandraschi-leanforge-mcp": {
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "leanforge-mcp-webapp"
      ],
      "command": "npx"
    }
  }
}

Documentation

View on GitHub

From the project's GitHub README.

leanforge-mcp

Python FastMCP Lean 4 Mathlib License: MIT Status: Phase B complete AlphaProof Nexus

MCP server for AI-driven formal proof search in Lean 4. Submit a theorem with sorry; get back a machine-verified proof. Implements Agent A from AlphaProof Nexus (DeepMind, May 2026).

Stack: Python 3.12+ . FastMCP 3.4+ . FastAPI . React/Vite . Tailwind . Zustand . Biome . Lean 4 / Mathlib


Table of Contents


What it does

Feed it a Lean 4 theorem with a sorry placeholder. It runs N parallel agents in a loop: the LLM proposes a proof edit, the Lean compiler judges it, errors feed back to the LLM. First agent to produce a sorry-free compile wins.

-- Input
theorem sum_formula (n : ℕ) : 2 * ∑ i ∈ Finset.range (n + 1), i = n * (n + 1) := by
  sorry

-- Output (machine-verified)
theorem sum_formula (n : ℕ) : 2 * ∑ i ∈ Finset.range (n + 1), i = n * (n + 1) := by
  induction n with
  | zero => simp
  | succ n ih => rw [Finset.sum_range_succ]; ring_nf; linarith

The compiler is the only oracle -- if it compiles without sorry, the proof is correct.


Quick Install

git clone https://github.com/sandraschi/leanforge-mcp
cd leanforge-mcp
uv sync
Copy-Item config.example.toml config.toml

Then add to claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "leanforge": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["--directory", "C:\\path\\to\\leanforge-mcp", "run", "python", "-m", "leanforge_mcp"],
      "env": { "DEEPSEEK_API_KEY": "...", "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "..." }
    }
  }
}

See INSTALL.md for the Lean + Mathlib workspace setup (~4GB, one-time -- already provisioned and verified on Goliath as of 2026-07-09).


What You Can Do

"Prove that the sum of the first n natural numbers is n*(n+1)/2"

"Submit this MiniF2F problem and check back in 10 minutes"

"Show me all the proof attempts for job abc-123 -- why is it stuck?"

"Run validate_lean on this tactic proof to see if it compiles"

Tools

ToolDescription
submit_theoremSubmit a theorem statement → job ID (async)
submit_lean_fileSubmit a full .lean file with sorry placeholders
get_proof_statusPoll job status; returns proof when complete
list_attemptsInspect the attempt trajectory per agent/turn
list_jobsList all jobs with status summary
validate_leanRaw Lean 4 compile -- no job tracking
verify_proofRe-check a proven file with verified kernels (con-leche, con-ron) -- needs workspace on Lean >= 4.35.0, see docs/VERIFIED_KERNELS.md
cancel_jobCancel a running job
leanforge_shutdownGracefully shut down the server (cancels live jobs, exits)
get_mathlib_searchNatural language search over Mathlib theorems

Requirements

  • Python 3.11+
  • Lean 4 via elan (winget install leanprover.elan)
  • Mathlib workspace with cached oleans (~4GB, one-time setup -- see INSTALL.md)
  • Ollama with deepseek-prover-v2:7b for tier-1 (local, free)
  • DeepSeek or Anthropic API key for tier-2/3 (optional)

Ports & configuration

PieceValue
MCP serverstdio (uv run python -m leanforge_mcp)
Web backend (FastAPI)http://127.0.0.1:10867
Web frontend (Vite)http://127.0.0.1:10868
Config fileconfig.toml (copy from config.example.toml; gitignored)
EnvironmentDEEPSEEK_API_KEY (tier 2), ANTHROPIC_API_KEY (tier 3) — see .env.example; keys stay in server env, never in the browser

Documentation

DocContents
INSTALL.mdPrerequisites, Lean workspace setup, Claude Desktop config
docs/ONBOARDING.mdFirst-timer setup: costs, pitfalls, sanity check
docs/CONFIGURATION.mdAll config options and environment variables
docs/TOOLS.mdFull tool reference with parameters and examples
docs/ARCHITECTURE.mdProof loop, tier escalation, job lifecycle, SQLite schema
docs/LEAN.mdLean 4 language reference, tactic guide, bibliography, link collection
docs/VERIFIED_KERNELS.mdWhy verify_proof exists, what con-leche/con-ron are, workspace upgrade path
docs/LEAN_PRIMER.mdQuick Lean 4 intro for engineers (short version)
docs/ALPHAPROOF_NEXUS.mdThe technique: AlphaProof Nexus paper explained
docs/COVERAGE_GAP.mdWhy DeepMind got MSM coverage and a startup wouldn't
docs/BENCHMARK_RESULTS.mdMiniF2F, PutnamBench, Erdős results
docs/DEVELOPMENT.mdContributing, dev setup, test commands
docs/TROUBLESHOOTING.mdCommon errors and fixes
llms-full.txtFull LLM context: tools, endpoints, config, ports

Roadmap

PhaseWhatStatus
ACore loop: LLM proposes, Lean judges, error feeds backDone
BCorrectness hardening, edge case handling, timeout tuningDone (2026-07-09) -- tamper guard closed against default-arg truncation and a decoy-duplicate attack, cross-process job ownership/cancellation fixed, stateless-prompting mitigations added. 56/56 tests passing on real hardware. See docs/ASSESSMENT_2026-06-24.md
CPerformance and safety: REPL worker pool (compile-time is the real bottleneck), LLM timeout/retry, token/cost accounting (hard gate before any batch run)In progress -- see TODO.md
DMulti-agent parallel scheduling (Agent B from paper) -- run N loops in parallel, first to finish winsPlanned
ESelf-critique step -- LLM reviews its own proof before compile, catches obvious errors earlyPlanned
FWebapp proof explorer -- interactive tree view of attempted proof paths, live tactic streamingPlanned
GPremise selection -- before generating tactics, search Mathlib for relevant lemmasPlanned
HCumulative context windowing -- smart summarization of long error chains instead of blind concatenationPlanned
IBenchmark dashboard -- webapp page tracking MiniF2F, PutnamBench, Erdős results per model/configStretch
JHuman-in-the-loop -- when the agent is stuck, pause and surface the current state for a human hintStretch
KProof caching -- deduplicate sub-proofs so repeated lemmas compile instantlyStretch

What each phase enables

A + B let you submit a theorem and get a proof back on the other end. It works, it's useful, but it's single-threaded, pays a full compile per turn, and has no spend controls -- Phase C closes those gaps.

D changes the game: N parallel agents means wall-clock time drops from "however long one LLM takes" to "however long the fastest of N LLMs takes." For hard theorems where the LLM wanders into dead ends, this is the difference between 5 minutes and 30 seconds.

E prevents the LLM from wasting compiles on obviously wrong tactics. Cheap to add (one extra LLM call per attempt) and the paper shows it improves solve rate by ~15 percentage points on Agent A alone.

F is the user-facing payoff: instead of staring at "status: running" and polling, you watch the LLM try tactics in real time, see which paths it abandoned, and understand why it eventually succeeded or failed.

G addresses the most common failure mode: the LLM writes a correct tactic for a lemma that doesn't exist in the current context. Premise selection (a small retrieval step before tactic generation) cuts this dramatically.

H is invisible but critical: as the LLM accumulates 10+ failed attempts, the error context grows past the model's window. Smart summarization keeps relevant signal without drowning the LLM in noise.

Full gap analysis: docs/ASSESSMENT_2026-06-24.md


License

MIT

Reviews

No reviews yet

Be the first to review this server!