Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCP Security Gate

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Automated security red-team for any MCP server that scans manifests against OWASP LLM Top 10 and MCP-specific risks, returning a 0-100 hardening score and HMAC-signed report.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Audits MCP server configurations for security risks including capability inventory, SSRF, prompt injection, and drift detection. Works in read-only mode and can also be used as an MCP server to let AI agents audit their own attack surface.
      145 PyPI
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Scans MCP servers for prompt-injection, tool-poisoning, and SSRF vulnerabilities using 30+ canonical rules across 5 severity tiers, with optional signed safety reports for procurement.
      5
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables enterprise MCP security auditing through 12 deterministic no-LLM tools for evidence-gated claims, skill/prompt supply-chain audits, token profiling, and server auth-mode checks.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Passive security scanner that audits a running MCP server against the OWASP MCP Top 10 and grades it A-F. Read-only static analysis of the advertised tools, prompts and resources with console/JSON/SARIF output, and it also runs as an MCP server itself.
      33 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables an agent or MCP client to scan MCP server configs and AI-agent tool manifests on demand, exposing tools that list detection rules and report hidden prompt injections, data-exfiltration attempts, embedded secrets, deceptive Unicode, unpinned packages and shell-launching tools. Each finding comes with a severity and location so risky tool descriptions can be caught before an attacker exploits them.
      64 PyPI
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools target different objects: scan_mcp_server inspects an MCP endpoint read-only, while botshield_probe sends prompt-injection payloads to a bot the caller owns. An agent could occasionally conflate them since both are security assessments, but the target distinction (MCP server vs bot) and the confirmOwnBot guard make selection reasonably clear.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    scan_mcp_server follows a verb_noun pattern, but botshield_probe uses a brand-prefixed noun_verb form, so the two names do not follow the same convention. Both are readable and snake_case, but the pattern is mixed.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is thin for a server framed as a security gate. Each tool is meaningful, but the surface feels like a narrow slice rather than a well-scoped toolkit.

    Completeness2/5

    The surface covers a read-only MCP scan and a single bot probe class, but there is no way to retrieve prior results, export a report, verify remediation, or probe other attack categories. These are significant gaps for a security-assessment server that will force agents to work around missing operations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues