actions-guard-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to actions-guard-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAudits GitHub Actions workflow files for supply-chain risks like script injection, leaked tokens, unpinned actions, and broad permissions.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLocal-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.3113 npm2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.40 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceVerify-before-act safety tools for AI coding agents, providing MCP tools to check packages, lockfiles, manifests, and CI workflows for supply chain risks.423 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn 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.39104 npm12MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAgent-native "safe to ship?" security gate for AI-generated code. Uses real parsers and inter-rocedural taint analysis (JS/TS, Python, Go) to flag the classes AI coding agents get wrong — secrets, SQL injection, SS, SSRF, path traversal, command injection, weak JWT/CORS — and ranks findings by confidence. Exposes a scan tool over MCP.16 npm2MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.