A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceCryptographic accountability for AI agents. Ed25519-signed receipts for every MCP tool call. Constraints, chains, AI judgment, invoicing, and local dashboard included.
24
3 npm
1
MIT
agentguard
OfficialRelated Servers
Alternatives to agentguard
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to operate through a local, signed boundary that blocks prompt injection and secret leakage, verifies outputs, preserves cross-session memory, and provides offline-verifiable receipts. It also exposes 900+ MCP tools for discoverable agent actions.7MIT
Affixio MCPofficial
FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents to locally attest actions and gate privileged tool calls with signed allow/deny decisions, using privacy-preserving hashing and offline ML-DSA-65 verification.3-- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents and MCP clients to screen proposed actions, enforce deterministic policies and limits, and produce tamper-proof signed audit receipts before any external side effect is executed.4 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to govern downstream tool servers by enforcing default-deny authority and attestation on every tool call, with live monitoring, approval, and mid-session revocation.3Apache 2.0
- FlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic <1µs in-band execution governance gateway and W3C DID security guardrail for AI Agent MCP tool calls.116-
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 6 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct function: preview, status, export, set cost, decide, and verify. The repeated optional identifier language adds some textual similarity, but the core purposes are clearly separate, with only mild potential overlap between preview and status.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (provenance_preview, spend_status, export_receipts, set_model_cost, spend_decide, verify_receipt). The verbs are descriptive and the nouns align with the API's domain, making the naming pattern highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct role in the spend-gating and receipt lifecycle, and none feel redundant or missing a critical counterpart. This is an appropriate count for a focused security/attestation service.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow: previewing provenance, checking status, setting model costs, making decisions, exporting receipts, and verifying them. Missing is a tool to modify policy (caps, enforcement mode), which is only exposed read-only via spend_status. This is a minor gap that an agent could work around if policies are managed externally.