Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to actions-guard-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Audits GitHub Actions workflow files for supply-chain risks like script injection, leaked tokens, unpinned actions, and broad permissions.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Local-only GitHub Actions and CI maintenance scanner for AI-built apps. Exposes scan, explanation, and fix-planning tools to MCP clients; modifies nothing and makes no outbound requests by default.
      3
      39 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible AI agents to scan code for leaked secrets, copyleft licenses, unprotected routes, missing privacy policies, and risky card handling before committing or shipping.
      56 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables scanning GitHub Actions workflow YAML for real-world security vulnerabilities such as script injection from attacker-controlled expressions, unpinned third-party actions, missing permissions blocks, and dangerous pull_request_target checkouts. It returns each finding with its exact location, an explanation of the risk, and a concrete remediation.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI agents to perform comprehensive GitHub security audits across org settings, repositories, Actions workflows, secrets, supply chain, and access control using 39 tools and 45 checks.
      39
      132 npm
      14
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools share the same core purpose (security scanning of GitHub Actions workflows) but are clearly differentiated by input source: one takes a file path and the other takes raw content. The descriptions explicitly clarify the difference, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a distinguishing suffix: 'scan_workflow_file' and 'scan_workflow_content'. This is clear, predictable, and allows easy selection based on input type.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a security scanner. While the focus is narrow, the limited surface might be seen as thin, though it covers the primary use cases without being excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the two main input modes for workflow scanning (file and raw content), which are the most common scenarios. However, it misses other potential inputs like URLs or repository paths, leaving a minor gap for an agent that wants to scan directly from a remote source.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues