Skip to main content
Glama
drewrukin

llm-code-security-review-mcp

by drewrukin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to llm-code-security-review-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Vibe-Coder MCP Server

      crazyrabbitLTC
      A
      license
      D
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that implements a structured workflow for LLM-based coding, guiding development through feature clarification, documentation generation, phased implementation, and progress tracking.
      10
      44 npm
      18
      MIT

    • DevFlow MCP Server

      FaerberK
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that integrates DevFlow with AI code assistants to enforce structured development workflows including planning, task tracking, and code review gates.
      65
      31 npm
      1
      MIT

    • AI Security Crew

      Srajangpt1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      A lightweight MCP server for security reviews that injects security requirements before code generation, scans dependencies for CVEs, and verifies generated code without disrupting workflow.
      68
      MIT

    • PlanFlow

      DabiK
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for creating, validating, and reviewing implementation plans in GitHub Copilot Chat, with visual review interface and MongoDB persistence.
      -
    • Helios by alibaba

      Heliosofficial

      alibaba
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that securely reviews AI-generated code for vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, command injection, and hardcoded credentials.
      11
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A4.2/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct role: load_plan initializes the review, get_task fetches the active task, status reports progress, and report_done submits results. Despite verbose instructions, the boundaries are clear and an agent should not confuse them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    load_plan and get_task follow a clean verb_noun pattern, and all names use lowercase snake_case. status is a bare noun and report_done uses an adjective complement rather than a noun object, so the pattern is not perfect but remains readable and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is well-scoped for a focused security-review orchestration server. Each tool maps to an essential phase of the workflow and none feels redundant or missing.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the full intended lifecycle: load the plan, retrieve tasks, submit results, and check final status. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations within the server's clearly defined orchestration purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources