Skip to main content
Glama
ComplyEdge

ComplyEdge TrustLint

Official

Related Servers

Alternatives to ComplyEdge TrustLint

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Security scanner and MCP server that catches dangerous patterns in MCP servers and AI agent projects, such as leaked secrets, shell execution, and prompt-injection text. Runs as both a CLI and MCP server with CI-friendly severity gates.
      2
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for AI agent security guardrails. Provides input validation, prompt injection detection, PII redaction, output filtering, policy enforcement, rate limiting, and comprehensive audit logging.
      43 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Unified MCP safety server that detects prompt injection (75 patterns), scans LLM outputs for leaked secrets/PII, enforces API cost budgets, and creates signed audit trails. Zero ML dependencies, pure Python.
      17
      17 PyPI
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A deterministic MCP server that guards AI/agent output by detecting secrets, injection, and PII in ~85µs with zero dependencies. Gives a clear ship/block verdict and runs locally or hosted.
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A modular MCP server providing structured, methodology-driven prompt endpoints for rapid legal/compliance landscape mapping, gap discovery, and risk prioritization across privacy, IP, AI governance, security, consumer, and disclosure domains, with argument-based adaptability to any product context.
      7 npm
      6
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.6/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    list_rules is clearly a discovery tool distinct from the two scanners. check_compliance and scan_prompt run the same regex corpus on different inputs (already-produced text vs. a prompt about to be sent), and both descriptions explicitly point to each other; the lifecycle distinction is clear but the underlying operation is nearly identical, so some misselection is possible.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: list_rules, check_compliance, scan_prompt. The convention is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for an offline regex linter: one discovery tool and two evaluation modes (post-hoc vs. pre-generation). Each tool has a clear role, though the surface is slightly thin for a compliance domain.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers rule discovery and evaluation for both prompts and generated text, which are the core workflows. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for retrieving detailed rule content or batch/aggregate scanning, but agents can work around these.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive