Skip to main content
Glama
MichaelEnny

healthsec-mcp

by MichaelEnny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to healthsec-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • inkog

      inkog-io
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Security co-pilot for AI agents. Scans for vulnerabilities like prompt injection, infinite loops, and token bombing in AI Agents, audits MCP servers, verifies AGENTS.md governance, and generates EU AI Act compliance reports.
      10
      87 npm
      3
      Apache 2.0

    • RedTeam ML API MCP

      rnadjqaim
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables security teams to run controlled adversarial penetration tests against authorized ML/LLM API endpoints, scoring responses and generating evidence for compliance frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, and GDPR.
      6
      2
      MIT

    • sec-ops-mcp

      JoaquinHernandez
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLMs and AI agents to perform defensive security posture assessments, privilege escalation surface audits, and post-quantum cryptography readiness checks through read-only diagnostic tools.
      MIT
    • Heron by heronsec

      Heronofficial

      heronsec
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Security scanning for AI agent skills, MCP servers, and agent prompts, returning signed trust scores and detailed findings.
      MIT
    • Rigour MCP by rigour-labs

      Rigour MCPofficial

      rigour-labs
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to self-govern by scanning code for hardcoded secrets, structural violations, and AI drift in real-time, providing fix packets for automatic remediation.
      27
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different security assessment areas (attack types, scoring, compliance, audit, reporting). There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., run_fgsm, score_compliance). The naming is descriptive and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 10 tools covering adversarial attacks, scoring, compliance, audit, and reporting, the count is well-scoped for its domain. Each tool earns its place without being excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers core security assessment workflows (attacks, scoring, reports) but lacks explicit model registration tools; models are assumed pre-registered, which is a minor gap.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources