Skip to main content
Glama
Katalinhorvath-blip

Nura MCP Policy Interceptor

Related Servers

Alternatives to Nura MCP Policy Interceptor

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables governing tenant-aware MCP tools with policy enforcement, scoped access, human approval workflows, and tamper-evident audit logging.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides a security governance layer for AI agents to safely access upstream MCP servers, enforcing tool-level RBAC, parameter constraints, authentication via static tokens or OIDC, and tamper-evident audit logging.
      2
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents and MCP clients to safely access upstream MCP servers through centralized policy enforcement, including allow/deny/approval decisions, schema pinning, circuit breakers, and audit logging.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides a governance proxy layer for MCP servers, enforcing per-tool allowlists, human approval for write operations, quotas, secret redaction, and a hash-chained audit log of all calls.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables centralized proxy and orchestration of MCP servers, providing unified tool discovery, authentication, and secure request routing. It adds a human-in-the-loop approval gate for high-risk actions and audit logging.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables policy-governed MCP interactions with deterministic authorization, tenant isolation, minimized PII exposure, and human approval gates for sensitive mutations, while producing structured audit events.
      3
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are entirely distinct: one applies a discount to a deal, the other deletes a database record. There is no overlap or ambiguity between their purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern with snake_case: 'apply_deal_discount' and 'delete_database_record'. This is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Policy Interceptor' scope. The count is on the low end of borderline, as it may not cover enough operations to be truly useful.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is sparse and lacks obvious lifecycle operations. For a policy interceptor, one would expect at least read/list functionality alongside the action tools, and the current set leaves significant gaps in typical CRUD or policy management workflows.