HOC Guard MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to HOC Guard MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceScan any project or website for privacy compliance issues directly in your AI coding tool. Detects tracking tech, cookies, and third-party data collection. Works in Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.330 npm1MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to install GDPR-compliant cookie consent banners on websites with a single command, handling domain registration, template assignment, and script injection.21 npm-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceGenerates legal policies (privacy, terms, cookies, etc.) directly from AI coding tools by analyzing codebase context.1642 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants and coding agents to audit, compare, and optimize websites for performance, SEO, AEO, GEO, and AI crawler accessibility directly from chat or development workflows.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI coding agents like Claude and Cursor to audit websites for AI agent readiness, checking 199 rules across agentic discovery, content structure, and technical SEO.17Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceOne-step legal compliance for vibe-coded apps: scans project, generates privacy policies/TOS, installs cookie consent banner, and checks EU AI Act risk.1061 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 18 tools
Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions, and the detailed descriptions help distinguish static checks, live scans, code generation, and purpose management. However, guard_make_compliant overlaps with the specific generators (cookie banner, consent point, policy, compliance check), and guard_create_banner vs guard_generate_cookie_banner could be confused. These are manageable but not perfectly distinct.
All tools use the guard_ prefix and snake_case, with mostly predictable verb_noun patterns such as guard_get_scan_status, guard_create_purpose, and guard_update_purpose. Minor deviations like guard_login, guard_logout, and guard_explain are still readable and consistent with the overall convention.
18 tools serve two substantial clusters (compliance/scanning and purposes management) plus authentication, so the count is reasonable for the server's apparent scope. It is slightly on the heavy side, but each tool owns a distinct workflow step rather than being redundant.
Core LGPD workflows are well covered: local compliance checking, live site scanning, banner/consent/policy generation, finding explanations, login session handling, and purpose CRUD drafts. Minor gaps include no banner list/get/update/delete and no delete or archive operation for published purposes, though the agent-assisted surface can largely work around them.