Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Squidbrake

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables secure runtime mediation of tool requests from MCP-connected AI agents, enforcing least-privilege policies, validating intent and inputs, detecting multi-step attacks and information leaks, and supporting explainable decisions, audit trails, and human approval for sensitive actions.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides a secure MCP boundary for AI agents, intercepting and validating tool calls, redacting secrets, and requiring human approval for sensitive actions with a tamper-evident audit trail.
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that provides a security gateway for AI agents, enforcing allow/confirm/deny policies on tool calls and requiring human approval for risky operations, with full audit logging.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables agents to invoke declared API capabilities through a governed MCP surface where each call is risk-tiered — low-risk calls execute immediately, medium-risk writes queue for human approval, and high-risk actions are withheld from the tool list entirely. Every call, decision and denial is recorded in an audit trail, and responses carrying third-party text are scanned for prompt-injection signals before an agent can read them.
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides a governance layer for MCP servers, enforcing policy-based allow/deny/approval rules, requiring human approval for risky calls, and recording an auditable trail of every AI agent tool call.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to securely call MCP tools with risk scoring, checkpoints, rollback, and approval workflows.
      13 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 12 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: inbox, CRM, payments, and human-in-the-loop functions are cleanly separated by prefix and description. The three acme_* tools are related but clearly differentiated (ask a question, check approval of a held action, review past decisions), so an agent should select correctly.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case with resource prefixes (inbox_, email_, crm_, payments_, acme_), which is largely predictable. Minor inconsistencies exist: email_send breaks the inbox_ email grouping, and acme_recent_decisions is noun-based rather than verb_noun.

    Tool Count5/5

    12 tools is well within the ideal range and matches the breadth of the support-ops domain without bloat. Each tool appears to earn its place by covering a distinct capability.

    Completeness4/5

    Core support workflows—reading/replying to emails, looking up customers, updating plans, issuing refunds/transfers, and human escalation—are covered. Gaps include no email search/archive, no customer creation or general contact update, and no charge creation, but these are minor for the stated support context.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessResponsive