Skip to main content
Glama
SyedAnas01

mcp-safeguard

by SyedAnas01

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-safeguard

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that provides tools to scan text and URLs for prompt injection attacks, protecting AI agents from adversarial inputs.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that provides runtime defense for AI agents, protecting against prompt injection, data exfiltration, and other adversarial attacks through a ranked pipeline of up to 36 inline defenses and 3 output scanners.
      3
      Apache 2.0
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A security research MCP server for testing tool call safety with deterministic policies like allowlists, path boundary enforcement, SSRF prevention, output redaction, and prompt injection detection, without requiring external LLMs or API keys.
      6
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that detects and guards against tool poisoning and prompt injection attacks in tool descriptions and schemas. It provides risk scoring, pattern detection, safe rewriting, and audit reports with zero external API cost.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides AI-powered security analysis and safety instruction tools. This server helps protect AI agents by providing security guidelines, content analysis, and cautionary instructions when interacting with various MCPs and external services.
      6
      20 npm
      22
      ISC
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that enforces single-use human confirmations for sensitive tool calls, sanitizes prompts against prompt injection, and re-validates file paths before destructive actions.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Tools are largely distinct: full scan vs. targeted sub-scans (tool definitions, auth, endpoint) have clear boundaries. However, scan_mcp_server subsumes the focus of the other scan/check tools, which could cause an agent to pick the broader tool when a targeted one is needed. Descriptions mitigate this, but there is mild overlap in intent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (scan_, check_, generate_, get_, compare_). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and predictable, making the set easy to navigate.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools is well-scoped for a security scanning server. The full scan, three targeted checks, report retrieval, history listing, and comparison cover the core workflow without bloat or unnecessary duplication.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the scan–report–history–compare lifecycle effectively. Missing operations like pause/stop or delete are non-critical for this domain, and no obvious dead ends prevent common security auditing workflows. A small gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get single scan detail' besides the report, but history and report retrieval suffice.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive