cmdxray
Related Servers
Alternatives to cmdxray
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that vets LLM-emitted shell commands BEFORE execution — detects rm -rf nested deep in chains, package-manager glob removal (apt remove 'nvidia'), dd/mkfs filesystem destruction, chmod 777 / chown -R privilege blast, network-exfil via curl | bash, chained shutdown/reboot, git destructive ops. 30 detection rules across 8 families. Sub-second, local, free, MCP-native.3MIT

aperion-shieldofficial
FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLocal guardrail proxy for AI coding agents. Wraps any MCP server (stdio or HTTP/SSE) and blocks destructive tool calls before they execute, with TOFU catalog pinning against rug pulls and tool-poisoning/result-injection scanning. Single Rust binary, Apache-2.0.148-- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA runtime gate for coding agents. Blocks the tool calls that wreck a repo (force-push main, rm -rf, secret exfiltration, CI wipe) and lets normal build and commit work through. Machine-checked git-branch core (z3); the rest is high-precision heuristics. Tested on 3,790 real CI commands, 0 false blocks.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA consequence engine for shell commands. Blast Scope scores what a command would actually do before an AI agent runs it.495 PyPIApache 2.0
agent-guardprivate
AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSafety checks an agent runs before it acts — flags malicious packages, destructive shell commands, secret leaks, and web-backend holes before execution.8MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides a human-in-the-loop security layer for AI agents by intercepting file operations, explaining them with a local LLM, and enforcing a deterministic policy that requires user approval for risky actions.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The tools have distinct primary purposes — safety checking versus explanation — but explain_command also includes a risk assessment, creating some overlap with check_command_safety. Agents seeking only a risk verdict might be uncertain which tool to use, though the descriptions clarify the intended differences.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: check_command_safety and explain_command. The naming is consistent and clearly indicates each tool's action and target.
Two tools is on the thin side, but the server's scope is narrowly focused on shell command analysis, so the count is acceptable if not insufficient. It feels slightly sparse but not unreasonable for the stated purpose.
The domain appears to be shell command analysis, and the two tools cover safety checking and explanation, which are the core needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no syntax validation or comparison tool, but agents can accomplish the primary workflows without dead ends.