Skip to main content
Glama
Security Scanner MCP Server

Security Scanner MCP Server

Related Servers

Alternatives to Security Scanner MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to scan code for security vulnerabilities using multiple static analysis tools, with support for filtering, deduplication, and CI/CD integration.
      27
      44 PyPI
      4
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables users to run AI-assisted security reviews across bug hunting, application security, and infrastructure security by orchestrating tools such as Semgrep, CodeQL, Trivy, Gitleaks, OSV-Scanner, and OWASP ZAP. It produces local JSON and HTML reports with findings, evidence, and unperformed check status for further investigation.
      3
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Security checks for code an AI agent is about to trust. vetcode_guard checks a command before it installs packages or adds an MCP server: made-up names, look-alikes, malware advisories, brand-new releases, and the archive read without running it. vetcode_scan reads a folder for malware, supply-chain attacks, attacks on agents, leaked secrets and risky config. Local, zero dependencies.
      4
      607 npm
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Unifies seven open-source security scanners into one MCP interface, normalizing and deduplicating findings with AI-assisted triage, patch verification, and reports. Enables agents to scan source code, dependencies, secrets, containers, infrastructure-as-code, and authorized live targets under server-enforced safety limits.
      18
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to scan directories, container images, and SBOMs for vulnerabilities, look up individual CVEs, and refresh the local vulnerability database. Findings come back prioritized with concrete upgrade targets rather than raw scanner output.
      1
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 15 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: scanning different targets (image, filesystem, repository, SBOM, PURL) and using different engines (Trivy, Grype, cross-validation). However, `scan_image` and `vulnerability_report` both scan Docker images with overlapping vulnerability output, and `db_status`/`update_db` are closely related, causing minor ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The majority of tools follow a `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `scan_image`, `generate_sbom`), with consistent use of the `scan_` prefix for scanning tools. However, `vulnerability_report` is a noun phrase, `cross_validate` is a verb without an object, and `db_status` is noun_noun, breaking the pattern slightly.

    Tool Count5/5

    15 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering scanning, SBOM generation, database management, and reporting. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being too numerous or too sparse for a security scanner server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers core security scanning operations for Docker images, filesystems, repositories, IaC configs, and SBOMs, with multi-engine support and cross-validation. Minor gaps include lack of running container scanning or direct CVE lookups beyond PURL, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessOutdated data