Skip to main content
Glama
dingdawg

DingDawg Agent Spend Policy MCP

Official
by dingdawg

Related Servers

Alternatives to DingDawg Agent Spend Policy MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables agents to request payment authorization against signed human mandates, enforcing policy-as-code limits and returning a decision (authorize, challenge, or deny) without moving funds.
      1
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Compare service-grant changes, tool alias origins, and saved MCP tool definitions with Gooo rules. Reports preserve incomplete-capture uncertainty and source bindings. No grants are applied and no compared tools are invoked.
      4
      1
      BSD 3-Clause
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables an MCP client to ask whether a purchase is affordable and receive an auditable, deterministic YES/NO verdict backed by an append-only ledger, and to attempt a real governed checkout that returns a structured decline without creating a PayPal order when the answer is NO. It surfaces committed-payment headroom and essential-lane exceptions so agents can gate spending before money moves.
      8 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enforces deterministic policies on AI agent tool calls, evaluating actions against compliance modules (SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, etc.) and returning ALLOW, BLOCK, or CONSTRAIN decisions with an audit trail.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      Enables verification of AI agent identity, authority, and integrity at transaction time, returning signed verdicts for allow, step-up, review, or block.
      MIT

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The sole tool name 'evaluate_spend_policy' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, and with no other tools, there are no inconsistent conventions.

    Tool Count4/5

    A single tool is slightly thin, but it is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose of evaluating spend policies. The count is reasonable and not trivial.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool fully covers its domain: it deterministically evaluates a proposed action against policy and explicitly avoids out-of-scope actions. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues