Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Shipshape MCP Server

Shipshape MCP Server

by Bytestay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Shipshape MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Shipshape MCP server

      hybridforgelab
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Lets a coding agent lint a Dockerfile or Kubernetes manifest through the Shipshape API, returning an A–F grade, score, pass/fail status, and every finding with its line, fix, and reference. Catches issues like root in the final stage, unpinned base images, curl | sh, secrets in ENV/ARG, and Pod Security Standards, resources, and probes violations before handing work over.
      MIT

    • Dockerfile Check

      arhancanli
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to validate Dockerfiles for build-breaking syntax errors, risky patterns like root users and secrets in ENV/ARG, and cache-order problems, returning every finding with its line and a fix. It also verifies referenced container images against public registries, reporting tag existence, digests to pin, supported platforms, last rebuild time, and end-of-life status with an upgrade tag.
      2
      1
      MIT

    • layerlint-mcp

      xuange-hu
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Exposes a Dockerfile auditing engine to AI assistants, letting them scan a Dockerfile for the 32 deterministic layer-aware rules, print a stage/layer map showing what each layer adds or deletes, explain any rule's rationale and fix, and list available rules. Findings include file:line evidence so agents can surface and triage image-safety issues directly in Claude Code, Cursor, or Cline.
      MIT
    • EVIDIQ Bastion

      EVIDIQ Bastionofficial

      evidiq
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Audits infrastructure configurations (Dockerfiles, GitHub Actions, Kubernetes, Terraform/Compose) against 14 deterministic security rules, returning BLOCK/REVIEW/PASS verdicts and signing attestations. Helps agents verify deployment configs before applying them.
      1
      MIT

    • HefestoAI

      artvepa80
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to submit code files for analysis and receive rule-based findings with severities, line numbers, and SARIF fingerprints, covering security, complexity, and dependency/configuration drift.
      682 PyPI
      7
      MIT

    • Skill Quality MCP

      LoveMuZiLi
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables Cursor and Codex agents to audit Agent Skill structure (frontmatter, broken links, missing files), analyze dependencies for undeclared, unused or vulnerable packages via OSV, and run 28 local bug and code-quality rules with SonarQube-style A–E ratings. It can also optionally pull issues, metrics and quality-gate status from SonarQube or SonarCloud, or scan and upload results.
      9
      2
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of misselection between tools. The single tool's purpose (lint a Dockerfile or Kubernetes manifest) is clearly stated, and its two input modes (`content` vs `path`) are handled as parameters rather than as separate overlapping tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With a single tool named `lint`, there is no mixed convention to violate; the name is a clear, conventional verb. Consistency is trivially satisfied, though there is no multi-tool pattern to demonstrate predictability.

    Tool Count3/5

    One tool is on the thin side, but the server's scope is genuinely narrow (static analysis of Dockerfiles and K8s manifests), so a single entry point is defensible. It sits at the borderline of '1-2 tools feels thin' rather than being an extreme mismatch, since the tool itself does substantial work (grade, score, findings, fixes, references).

    Completeness3/5

    The core linting lifecycle — submit a manifest and get scored findings with fixes and references — is covered for both Dockerfile and Kubernetes inputs. However, obvious adjacent operations are absent: auto-fix/remediation, batch or directory-level linting, and any rule/config discovery, which leaves agents at a dead end once findings are returned.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources