de en es ja ko ru zh

PiQrypt MCP Server

Name: PiQrypt MCP Server
Author: PiQrypt

by PiQrypt

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

PiQrypt MCP 서버

Model Context Protocol을 통한 AI 에이전트용 암호화 감사 추적

Related MCP server: DCL Evaluator

🚀 PiQrypt MCP란 무엇인가요?

PiQrypt MCP 서버는 AI 에이전트를 위한 양자 내성 암호화 감사 추적인 PiQrypt에 대한 Model Context Protocol 액세스를 제공합니다.

사용 사례:

🤖 AI 에이전트: 모든 의사결정에 암호화 증명 서명
📊 n8n 워크플로우: 자동화 워크플로우에 감사 추적 추가
🏦 트레이딩 봇: 자동 매매를 위한 SEC/FINRA 규정 준수
👥 HR 자동화: GDPR을 준수하는 AI 채용 결정
🏥 의료 AI: 의료 결정을 위한 HIPAA 감사 추적

📦 설치

사전 요구 사항

1. piqrypt 설치 (필수 — Python 3.8 이상)

pip install piqrypt

MCP 서버는 모든 암호화 작업을 piqrypt Python 패키지에 위임합니다. 설치되어 있지 않으면 서버는 모든 도구 호출 시 명확한 오류를 반환합니다.

2. MCP 서버 설치 (Node.js 18 이상)

npm install -g @piqrypt/mcp-server

npx를 통한 설치 (전역 설치 불필요)

npx @piqrypt/mcp-server

소스에서 빌드

git clone https://github.com/piqrypt/piqrypt-mcp-server
cd piqrypt-mcp-server
npm install
npm run build

PIQRYPT_PYTHON — 사용자 지정 Python 환경

기본적으로 서버는 python3(Linux/Mac) 또는 python(Windows)을 사용합니다. piqrypt가 가상 환경에 설치되어 있는 경우, 이 변수를 올바른 인터프리터를 가리키도록 설정하세요:

Windows

set PIQRYPT_PYTHON=C:\path\to\venv\Scripts\python.exe

Linux / Mac

export PIQRYPT_PYTHON=/path/to/venv/bin/python

지속적으로 사용하려면 MCP 클라이언트 구성에 추가하세요:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "piqrypt": {
      "command": "piqrypt-mcp-server",
      "args": [],
      "env": {
        "PIQRYPT_PYTHON": "/path/to/venv/bin/python"
      }
    }
  }
}

⚙️ 구성

Claude Desktop

~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json에 추가하세요:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "piqrypt": {
      "command": "piqrypt-mcp-server",
      "args": []
    }
  }
}

n8n (v1.88 이상)

n8n MCP 통합 설치
구성에 PiQrypt MCP 서버 추가
MCP 노드를 통해 워크플로우에서 사용

호환성

MCP 클라이언트

클라이언트	버전	참고
모든 MCP 호환 클라이언트	MCP spec 2024-11+	stdio 전송
n8n	1.88+	MCP 노드 경유
Cursor	모든 버전	mcp 설정에 추가
VS Code	모든 버전	mcp 설정에 추가
Continue	모든 버전	mcp 설정에 추가
Windsurf	모든 버전	mcp 설정에 추가

자동화 플랫폼 (MCP 노드 경유)

플랫폼	통합	사용 사례
n8n	MCP 노드 (기본)	노코드 감사 추적
Make.com	HTTP 모듈	웹훅 트리거 스탬핑
Zapier	웹훅 + HTTP	기본 이벤트 기록

PiQrypt MCP로 감사할 수 있는 항목

모든 도구 호출은 스탬프, 검증, 내보내기, 검색이라는 4가지 동일한 작업을 거칩니다. 상황에 따라 실질적으로 의미하는 바는 다음과 같습니다:

자동 매매 / 금융 주문을 제출하거나, 포트폴리오를 리밸런싱하거나, 거래를 트리거하는 모든 에이전트는 실행 전에 각 의사결정을 스탬프 처리할 수 있습니다. 서명된 체인은 추가 인프라 없이도 SEC/FINRA 감사를 위해 내보낼 수 있습니다.

HR 및 채용 자동화 후보자를 평가하거나, 이력서 점수를 매기거나, 지원자를 분류하는 모든 워크플로우는 각 의사결정을 스탬프 처리할 수 있습니다. AI 지원 채용을 위한 GDPR 제22조 준수 감사 추적을 제공합니다. 누가, 언제, 무엇을 결정했는지, 어떤 데이터가 사용되었는지(해시 처리됨, 원본은 절대 저장되지 않음)를 기록합니다.

콘텐츠 및 게시 파이프라인 콘텐츠를 초안 작성, 승인 또는 게시하는 모든 에이전트는 각 단계를 스탬프 처리할 수 있습니다. 여러 AI 에이전트가 협업할 때 누가 무엇을 어떤 순서로 작성했는지 증명해야 할 때 유용합니다.

DevOps 및 CI/CD 배포를 트리거하거나, 브랜치를 병합하거나, 보안 비밀을 교체하는 모든 에이전트는 각 작업을 스탬프 처리할 수 있습니다. 자율 에이전트에 의해 수행된 인프라 변경 사항에 대한 변조 방지 기록을 제공합니다.

의료 및 의료 AI 모든 진단 또는 분류 에이전트는 각 권장 사항을 스탬프 처리할 수 있습니다. 각 AI 출력을 검증 가능한 에이전트 ID와 연결하는 HIPAA 준수 감사 추적을 제공합니다.

모든 경우의 공통 패턴:

[Agent makes decision]
↓
piqrypt_stamp_event    ← sign + chain
↓
[Agent executes action]
↓
piqrypt_export_audit   ← portable proof, verifiable
                          without PiQrypt installed

🛠️ 사용 가능한 도구

1. `piqrypt_stamp_event`

암호화 증명으로 AI 의사결정에 서명합니다.

매개변수:

agent_id (문자열, 필수): 에이전트 식별자
payload (객체, 필수): 의사결정 데이터
previous_hash (문자열, 선택): 체인 연결을 위한 이전 이벤트 해시

예시:

const event = await mcp.call('piqrypt_stamp_event', {
  agent_id: 'trading_bot_v1',
  payload: {
    action: 'buy',
    symbol: 'AAPL',
    quantity: 100,
    price: 150.25
  }
});

반환값:

{
  "version": "AISS-1.0",
  "agent_id": "trading_bot_v1",
  "timestamp": 1739382400,
  "nonce": "uuid-...",
  "payload": { ... },
  "previous_hash": "sha256:...",
  "signature": "base64:..."
}

2. `piqrypt_verify_chain`

이벤트 체인의 무결성을 검증합니다.

매개변수:

events (배열, 필수): 검증할 이벤트

예시:

const result = await mcp.call('piqrypt_verify_chain', {
  events: [event1, event2, event3]
});

반환값:

{
  "valid": true,
  "events_count": 3,
  "chain_hash": "sha256:...",
  "errors": []
}

3. `piqrypt_export_audit`

규정 준수를 위해 감사 추적을 내보냅니다.

매개변수:

agent_id (문자열, 필수): 내보낼 에이전트
certified (불리언): PiQrypt 인증 요청
output_format (문자열): json 또는 pqz

예시:

const audit = await mcp.call('piqrypt_export_audit', {
  agent_id: 'trading_bot_v1',
  certified: true,
  output_format: 'json'
});

4. `piqrypt_search_events`

SQLite 인덱스를 통한 빠른 검색.

매개변수:

event_type (문자열, 선택): 유형별 필터링
from_timestamp (숫자, 선택): 시작 시간
to_timestamp (숫자, 선택): 종료 시간
limit (숫자): 최대 결과 수 (기본값: 100)

예시:

const trades = await mcp.call('piqrypt_search_events', {
  event_type: 'trade_executed',
  from_timestamp: 1739300000,
  limit: 50
});

📊 Vigil 대시보드 (선택 사항, 무료)

스탬프 처리된 모든 이벤트는 PiQrypt의 로컬 모니터링 대시보드인 Vigil에서 볼 수 있습니다.

참고: Vigil은 MCP 서버에 의해 자동으로 실행되지 않습니다. 대시보드를 열기 전에 별도로 시작해야 합니다.

piqrypt vigil
# → http://localhost:8421

무료 티어 포함 항목: 체인 상태, VRS 위험 점수, 7일 기록, 중요(CRITICAL) 알림. 90일 기록, TrustGate 거버넌스 및 양자 내성 서명을 원하시면 Pro로 업그레이드하세요.

🗑️ 에이전트 관리

에이전트는 첫 번째 스탬프 시 자동으로 생성됩니다. 에이전트를 보고 삭제하려면:

Vigil 시작: piqrypt vigil
http://localhost:8421 열기
All Agents 보기로 이동
삭제할 에이전트 체크 → ✕ Delete selected 클릭
확인 — 에이전트가 남아 있지 않으면 Vigil은 시작 화면으로 돌아갑니다.

에이전트는 컴퓨터의 ~/.piqrypt/agents/에 저장됩니다. 에이전트를 삭제하면 해당 키와 이벤트 기록이 영구적으로 제거됩니다.

🔒 보안 모델

프로세스 격리

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  MCP Client (any MCP-compatible client)     │
│  ↓ JSON-RPC over stdio              │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  MCP Server (TypeScript/Node.js)    │  ← No crypto here
│  ↓ subprocess call                  │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Python Bridge (bridge.py)          │
│  ↓ invokes CLI                      │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  PiQrypt CLI (Python)               │
│  ↓ uses                             │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Core Crypto (aiss package)         │  ← All crypto here
│  • Ed25519 / Dilithium3             │
│  • RFC 8785 canonical JSON          │
│  • Hash chains                      │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘

보장

✅ 개인 키는 MCP 계층에 노출되지 않음 ✅ 모든 암호화는 Python에서 수행 (Ed25519, Dilithium3) ✅ CLI와 동일한 보안 (프로세스 격리) ✅ RFC AISS-1.1 준수 (동일한 출력) ✅ 하위 프로세스 호출 전 입력 유효성 검사

📚 예시

트레이딩 봇 (n8n)

[Webhook: price alert] 
    ↓
[AI Decision: buy/sell?]
    ↓
[PiQrypt MCP: stamp decision]  ← Audit trail
    ↓
[Execute trade API]
    ↓
[Database: store proof]

HR 자동화

[Upload CV]
    ↓
[AI Agent: evaluate candidate]
    ↓
[PiQrypt MCP: stamp evaluation]  ← GDPR compliance
    ↓
[Email HR team]

🧪 테스트

# Build
npm run build

# Test bridge
python3 src/python/bridge.py stamp '{"agent_id":"test","payload":{"action":"test"}}'

# Test MCP server (manual)
node dist/index.js
# Then send MCP request via stdin

🔧 문제 해결

`Error: piqrypt is not installed in this Python environment`

MCP 서버에서 사용하는 Python 인터프리터가 piqrypt 패키지를 찾을 수 없습니다.

해결 방법:

pip install piqrypt

piqrypt가 시스템 Python이 아닌 가상 환경에 설치된 경우, PIQRYPT_PYTHON을 올바른 인터프리터를 가리키도록 설정하세요:

# Linux / Mac
export PIQRYPT_PYTHON=/path/to/venv/bin/python

# Windows
set PIQRYPT_PYTHON=C:\path\to\venv\Scripts\python.exe

서버가 사용할 Python을 확인하려면:

# Linux / Mac
$PIQRYPT_PYTHON -c "import aiss; print('ok')"

# Windows
%PIQRYPT_PYTHON% -c "import aiss; print('ok')"

📖 문서

🤝 기여

기여를 환영합니다! CONTRIBUTING.md를 참조하세요.

📄 라이선스

MCP 서버 → MIT 라이선스 - LICENSE 참조 PiQrypt 코어 → 무료 티어 + 상업용 티어

🔗 링크

PiQrypt 코어: https://github.com/piqrypt/piqrypt
MCP 프로토콜: https://modelcontextprotocol.io
n8n: https://n8n.io
문서: https://docs.piqrypt.com

PiQrypt Inc.에서 ❤️를 담아 제작함

Available Tools

4 tools

piqrypt_export_auditA

Export the complete agent audit trail to a portable JSON archive. Set certified=true to request a PiQrypt CA signature for legal admissibility (eIDAS Art.26). The export is self-contained and verifiable without PiQrypt installed.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent ID to export
`certified`	No	Create certified export (requires Pro license)
`output_format`	No	Output format (json or encrypted pqz archive)	json

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that export is self-contained and verifiable, and mentions Pro license requirement. Does not detail side effects or reading behavior; with no annotations, this is moderate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each adding essential information: purpose and certification detail. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks output schema but describes the result as a portable JSON archive. Missing details on error conditions or what the audit trail contains, but adequate for a simple export.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value for the certified parameter (legal admissibility) and clarifies the export scope (complete trail).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool exports a complete agent audit trail to JSON, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like piqrypt_search_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides context on when to use certified=true and notes the export is self-contained. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

piqrypt_search_eventsA

Search the agent's cryptographic event history by type, time range, or session. Returns signed events with chain metadata. Use to reconstruct what an agent did during a specific period.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event_type`	No	Filter by event type (e.g., "trade_executed", "decision_made")
`from_timestamp`	No	Start timestamp (Unix UTC seconds)
`to_timestamp`	No	End timestamp (Unix UTC seconds)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description states it returns signed events with chain metadata, implying read-only. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with empty results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema; description gives a brief idea of return values (signed events with chain metadata) but omits details like event structure or metadata fields. The mention of session without a corresponding parameter reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond repeating filter options. It mentions session but the schema lacks a session parameter, creating slight ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states verb (search), resource (cryptographic event history), and scope (by type, time range, or session). Distinguishes from siblings like piqrypt_stamp_event (create) and piqrypt_export_audit (export).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear use case ('reconstruct what an agent did during a specific period'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

piqrypt_stamp_eventA

Create a tamper-proof cryptographic record of an agent decision. Signs the event with Ed25519, links it to the previous event in a hash chain (AISS v2.0). Call this after every significant agent action. Required for GDPR Art.22, EU AI Act Art.13, HIPAA audit trail, SEC/FINRA trading compliance.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent identifier (e.g., "trading_bot_v1", "hr_decision_engine")
`payload`	Yes	Event payload containing decision data (JSON object)
`previous_hash`	No	Optional hash of previous event for chain integrity

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: tamper-proof record creation, Ed25519 signing, and hash chain linking. It lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error handling, but covers essential traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and including key details. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured by grouping regulations separately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral details adequately. The lack of return value description is a minor shortfall, but overall it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a cryptographic record, specifying the signing algorithm (Ed25519) and chaining mechanism (AISS v2.0), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for export, search, and verification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises 'Call this after every significant agent action' and lists regulatory requirements, providing strong contextual cues. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the tool should not be called.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

piqrypt_verify_chainA

Verify that an agent's decision history is intact and untampered. Detects modified events, missing events, hash chain breaks, and forks. Call before trusting any historical agent output.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`events`	Yes	Array of PiQrypt events to verify

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description adequately describes what the tool detects (tampering evidence). However, it lacks details on output/return behavior (e.g., error vs result) and side effects, which would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action and key details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and usage. It lacks specification of return value (e.g., boolean, report), but overall is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Array of PiQrypt events to verify'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying integrity of an agent's decision history. It lists specific detection capabilities (modified events, missing events, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by its verification role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes explicit usage guidance: 'Call before trusting any historical agent output.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, the clear context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

4 tool updatesv1.5.3Apr 24, 2026
- Addedpiqrypt_export_audit
- Addedpiqrypt_search_events
- Addedpiqrypt_stamp_event
- Addedpiqrypt_verify_chain

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

A4.3/5.0

Scored 2026-09-09 22:32 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct action in the audit workflow: stamping, exporting, searching, and verifying. The descriptions make the boundaries clear, and even the slight overlap between search and export is resolved by their different purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case convention with a shared 'piqrypt_' prefix and a clear verb_object pattern, such as stamp_event and verify_chain. The small singular/plural variation is natural and does not hurt predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused cryptographic audit-log server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the lifecycle and none feels redundant or missing.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of an append-only audit trail: create, query, export, and verify. Missing update/delete operations are appropriate for a tamper-proof audit system, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

Touchstone
cv.touchstone
Bitcoin-anchored, tamper-evident audit log for AI agents — record, disclose and verify actions.
Blockchain Security Autonomous Agents
2
AccordTrace A
io.github.Kosta1985
Tamper-evident proof creation and verification for AI agents via MCP, A2A, and REST.
Security AI & Machine Learning
91
Warden
io.github.Larshiensch99
Register every AI agent, log every action, prove it. EU AI Act compliance built in.
Observability Security
2
Knox Anchor A
com.bonissystems
Bitcoin-anchored, tamper-evident audit-permanence layer for AI agents, FRE 902(13)/(14)-shaped.
Blockchain Legal & Compliance
72

Related MCP Servers

TrustAtom MCP Server
Security AI & Machine Learning
CWNApps
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Provides cryptographic signing and verification for AI decisions to generate verifiable, Ed25519-signed receipts for compliance and auditing. It automatically maps AI actions to regulatory frameworks like HIPAA and SOX with high-performance, sub-3ms signing.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-29 15:32 UTC)
4
MIT
DCL Evaluator
Security Legal & Compliance Monitoring
Fronesis-Labs
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Tamper-evident cryptographic audit trail for LLM outputs. Compliance logging for AI agent decisions.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-04-08 03:56 UTC)
-
Agent Audit Trail MCP Server
Security Observability
AiAgentKarl
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Provides tamper-proof audit logging for AI agents using SHA-256 hash chains, integrity verification, and compliance reporting for the EU AI Act.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-04-03 16:05 UTC)
1
MIT
AgentAudit MCP
Observability Autonomous Agents
Rumblingb
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides an immutable, tamper-evident audit trail for AI agents, enabling event logging with cryptographic chaining, search, verification, and statistics.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-28 18:53 UTC)
3
MIT

PiQrypt MCP 서버

🚀 PiQrypt MCP란 무엇인가요?

📦 설치

사전 요구 사항

npx를 통한 설치 (전역 설치 불필요)

소스에서 빌드

PIQRYPT_PYTHON — 사용자 지정 Python 환경

⚙️ 구성

Claude Desktop

n8n (v1.88 이상)

호환성

MCP 클라이언트

자동화 플랫폼 (MCP 노드 경유)

PiQrypt MCP로 감사할 수 있는 항목

🛠️ 사용 가능한 도구

1. piqrypt_stamp_event

2. piqrypt_verify_chain

3. piqrypt_export_audit

4. piqrypt_search_events

📊 Vigil 대시보드 (선택 사항, 무료)

🗑️ 에이전트 관리

🔒 보안 모델

프로세스 격리

보장

📚 예시

트레이딩 봇 (n8n)

HR 자동화

🧪 테스트

🔧 문제 해결

Error: piqrypt is not installed in this Python environment

📖 문서

🤝 기여

📄 라이선스

🔗 링크

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

1. `piqrypt_stamp_event`

2. `piqrypt_verify_chain`

3. `piqrypt_export_audit`

4. `piqrypt_search_events`

`Error: piqrypt is not installed in this Python environment`