Scepter
Related Servers
Alternatives to Scepter
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables users to deterministically audit MCP servers for security issues across manifests, source, runtime responses, multi-call state, identity, and install scripts, and to run an inline gateway that gates tool calls and scans responses before returning them.332 PyPI1Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to inspect and diagnose their own MCP setup by exposing read-only tools that audit configured servers, report which coding agents have configs, surface misplaced or duplicated registrations, and list curated preset packs. It also powers CLI workflows for checking handshake, tool lint, and tool-surface quality scores of any stdio server.14 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA continuous, out-of-band trust and reliability layer for the MCP ecosystem. It fingerprints MCP server tool definitions, detects and classifies drift (e.g., rug pulls) via a severity taxonomy, maintains a hash-chained evidence ledger, and gates CI with SARIF—while also acting as an MCP server itself so agents can check a server's safety before binding.Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables safe use of any MCP server by proxying and live-scanning all tool requests and responses, blocking or redacting poison descriptions, indirect prompt injection, malicious arguments, and unauthorized destinations.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceThis MCP server lets agents inspect every Model Context Protocol server on the machine, verify tools by running them in a sandbox, and check each call against a human-approved baseline so that changed or newly appeared tools are blocked before they execute. It also surfaces token cost, capability facts, and drift history for each tool entirely locally, without uploading inventory or requiring an account.555 PyPI1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables searching and comparing cataloged MCP servers by capability, retrieving installation snippets and trust reports, and checking a ledger of requested abilities through MCP tools.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
audit_config, check_server, and scan_config overlap somewhat: audit_config and scan_config both operate on config files and spawn servers, but audit_config focuses on toxic flows while scan_config runs check_server. check_server and inspect_server are fairly distinct (npm/repo health vs. live server tool-list audit) but both 'audit' a server, which could cause some confusion.
Two patterns coexist: <verb>_config (audit_config, scan_config) and <verb>_server (check_server, inspect_server). Within groups it's consistent, but the mix of _config and _server targets alongside two different verbs for auditing makes the scheme only partially predictable.
Four tools for a focused audit/scanning domain is lean but reasonable, each earning a place. It sits at the lower boundary of well-scoped rather than heavy.
Core flows—inspecting a single server, checking a package/repo, scanning and auditing a config—are covered. However there's no way to get/review prior inspection reports individually, diff drift over time, or audit a URL-based config comprehensively, leaving some lifecycle gaps.