No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 129 tools
The namespace prefixes (e.g. secret_scanner__scan_file vs prompt_leak_scanner__scan_text) make most tools distinguishable, and descriptions clarify domain-specific checks. However, many auditors share near-identical scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory/list_patterns patterns, and overlapping areas such as secret vs prompt-leak vs document scanning or individual auditors vs the owasp_scan meta-tools can cause selection confusion.
Tool names consistently follow a lower_snake_case namespace__action convention, with each auditor or domain grouped under a clear prefix. Minor variations like check_compliance or gateway_status still fit the established pattern, and the overall naming scheme is highly predictable.
At 129 tools, the surface is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and exceeds even the heavy 25+ threshold by a wide margin. While the server covers many security domains, the sheer number of closely parallel scan_* tools creates substantial selection overhead for an agent.
Coverage is broad and deep across secrets, dependencies, DNS, TLS, OAuth, prompt injection, MCP configuration, compliance, and vulnerability scanning, with file/text/directory variants and pattern-listing support in most areas. Minor lifecycle gaps remain, such as no baseline deletion for rug-pull detection and limited management operations for gateway policy or global scanner configuration.