Skip to main content
Glama
agent-governance MCP server

agent-governance MCP server

by Geomanti

Related Servers

Alternatives to agent-governance MCP server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Presents one governed MCP endpoint in front of many tool domains, routing every call through a single executor that enforces per-tool RBAC, rate limits, schema validation, encrypted secrets and PII-masked, hash-chained audit logging. It also lets teams register, validate and four-eyes approve new HTTP-backed tools at runtime so they appear to clients without a restart.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables teams to govern agent tool access with function-level allow-lists, credential modes, and audited execution, while exposing permitted MCP tools through a unified endpoint with search and execute functions.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-capable clients to query the tool registry, check install status, get tool recommendations for CTF or bug-bounty work, and run installed security tools through a governed execution path.
      15
      96
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides a policy-controlled MCP gateway that lets agents invoke tools with explicit policies, bounded execution, scoped visibility, and decision receipts.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables teams to govern which tools agents can use, set function-level permissions and credential modes, and expose many MCP tools through a unified endpoint with search and execute functions while keeping IDE context lean.
      -

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The four read_* tools each target a clearly distinct resource (issue, digest, ledger, audit log), so reads are unambiguous. draft_update and propose_issue_note are the only pair with mild overlap (both produce content concerning updates/notes), but the 'writes nothing' vs 'gated write' distinction is spelled out. An agent can reliably pick the right tool.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Every tool follows a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: read_issue, read_digest, read_ledger, read_audit_log, draft_update, propose_issue_note. The verb set (read/draft/propose) maps predictably to the side-effect class of each tool.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools is well-scoped for a governance/oversight server, and each tool has a distinct, non-redundant role. Nothing feels padded or missing at the count level.

    Completeness3/5

    The surface covers reading state and proposing changes, but there is no way to list issues (only read a single one), check the status of a submitted proposal, or follow a proposal through to resolution. These are notable gaps for an oversight workflow, though the read-plus-propose design is deliberately human-gated.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues