Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gmi-security-mcp

gmi-security-mcp

by Jayanng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to gmi-security-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • vibecheck

      ArisRhiannon
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Agent-native "safe to ship?" security gate for AI-generated code. Uses real parsers and inter-rocedural taint analysis (JS/TS, Python, Go) to flag the classes AI coding agents get wrong — secrets, SQL injection, SS, SSRF, path traversal, command injection, weak JWT/CORS — and ranks findings by confidence. Exposes a scan tool over MCP.
      1
      8 npm
      2
      MIT

    • SAST MCP Server

      Skyrxin
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to scan code for security vulnerabilities using multiple static analysis tools, with support for filtering, deduplication, and CI/CD integration.
      27
      44 PyPI
      4
      MIT
    • shipsafe-mcp

      shipsafe-mcpofficial

      EthYusuf
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to scan projects for security issues such as leaked API keys, missing Supabase RLS, open Firebase rules, unauthenticated routes, and hallucinated packages, then fix and verify the results.
      8
      1
      MIT

    • LeanGate

      lambdabypi
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to check whether a repository already provides the helper they are about to reimplement, surface bloat, missing error handling and security findings after each edit, and block task completion until blocking issues are fixed.
      7
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 15 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have a clearly distinct resource+action (scan vs. triage single vs. verify vs. mark vs. disclose). The only mild overlaps are triage_semgrep_finding vs. repo_scan (single finding vs. bulk pipeline) and check_osv_advisory vs. repo_scan's OSV section / explain_cve, but the descriptions make the boundaries explicit.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names are snake_case and readable, and the majority follow verb_noun (triage_*, verify_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, mark_*, estimate_*, explain_*, check_*, draft_*). Three deviate into noun_verb (repo_scan, scope_enable, scope_disable), a minor but noticeable inconsistency.

    Tool Count4/5

    15 tools is at the top of the well-scoped range but each maps to a real stage of the scan→triage→verify→confirm/disclose lifecycle. Nothing is clearly redundant, though the set is on the heavy side for a single MCP server.

    Completeness4/5

    The core lifecycle is well covered: scan, single/bulk triage, verify, list/get/update findings, mark_fp/mark_confirmed, disclosure, scope policy, rules listing, cost estimation, and CVE explanation. Minor gaps exist: no way to retrieve past scan reports by scan_id, no listing/deletion of triage memories created by mark_fp, and no delete_finding operation.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Resources