Skip to main content
Glama
Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

by Hardik-369

Related Servers

Alternatives to Change Risk Assessor MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to compute a 0-1 diff risk score for the current branch or any pull request, exposing the driving signals, evidence, tier and resulting auto-approve or human-review policy decision. Agents can use it to decide whether a low-blast-radius, AI-reviewed PR is safe to merge automatically while flagging risky changes for a human.
      6
      202 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Analyzes code changes using static code-graph and git co-change history to identify likely affected files, returning tiered confidence reports with evidence. Exposes tools for AI assistants to inspect current changes, static impact, historical co-change patterns, and detailed explanations.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides real-time security risk assessment for AI coding prompts, analyzing potential dangers, blast radius, and complexity before code execution in Cursor.
      1
      13 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Fast pre-commit dependency gate for AI-assisted code changes. Answers "is this safe to commit?" with a PASS/WARN/BLOCK verdict in seconds, so you can catch risky blast radius before a bad commit, not after it. No database, no heavy setup.
      5
      203 npm
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The one tool name 'assess_change_risk' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, consistent with conventional naming. With a single tool, there are no inconsistencies to evaluate.

    Tool Count2/5

    The server has only one tool, which feels too few for a server dedicated to change risk assessment. While the tool is not trivial, the lack of any complementary operations makes the tool surface overly thin.

    Completeness4/5

    The single tool provides comprehensive output for the core assessment task, including risk level, types, confidence, reasoning, and advice. However, there are no supporting tools for related tasks (e.g., batch assessment, historical tracking), which is a minor gap given the narrow scope.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues