Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to guardian-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with a transparent proxy and journal for every tool action, including pre-state snapshots and approval gates for risky operations. Enables per-action undo, rewind to a point in time, and a kill switch that agents cannot override.
      4 npm
      Business Source 1.1
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Stops your AI from re-introducing bugs, leaking provider keys, or weakening tests. Bug fixes become permanent regression guards; blocked mistakes become AI lessons the agent reads and learns from before its next edit.
      6
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides 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
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Guardrails for AI coding agents that enforces rules via compliance receipts, blocking destructive actions and syncing rules across all AI tools.
      24
      60 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A local-first MCP safety layer that blocks dangerous files and redacts secrets before AI agents can access them, ensuring safe vibe coding.
      4 npm
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A 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.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct action (delete, write, execute) on a different resource type. The safe_ prefix unifies them without blurring boundaries; no two tools could be mistaken for one another.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (safe_delete, safe_write, safe_execute) with the same prefix. Predictable and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only three tools covering delete, write, and execute. This is thin for a safety layer that would typically also cover safe_read, safe_list, or safe_move; the scope feels underdeveloped rather than tightly focused.

    Completeness3/5

    Covers three destructive operations but lacks read, list, or move/rename guards, which are common file operations. No API to inspect quarantine, restore files, or configure protected paths, creating dead ends for recovery workflows.