No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 39 tools
Multiple tools overlap significantly in scope: scan_host_config, guardvibe_doctor, and audit_mcp_config all target AI host/MCP security; scan_file, check_code, scan_directory, and check_project all scan code for vulnerabilities; check_dependencies and scan_dependencies both check for CVEs. The descriptions try to differentiate them, but an agent choosing between three tools for the same host-config task will likely misselect.
Naming mixes verb-first conventions (scan_file, analyze_dataflow, verify_fix) with noun-first conventions (repo_security_posture, security_stats, auth_coverage, remediation_plan), and there is no consistent verb for the same action (scan/check/analyze/audit). Some names like guardvibe_doctor, secure_this, and full_audit break the pattern entirely, making the surface harder to predict.
With 39 tools, the surface far exceeds the 3-15 tool range for a well-scoped server. While the security domain is broad, many tools are near-duplicates (e.g., three config/host scanners, four code scanners), so the count feels inflated rather than meaningfully comprehensive.
The server covers the full security lifecycle remarkably well: scanning (code, deps, secrets, config, host, history), analysis (dataflow, auth coverage, deep LLM analysis), remediation (fix_code, secure_this, remediation_plan, verify_remediation), reporting (compliance, SARIF, stats), and prevention (secure_prompt, generate_policy). The full_audit → remediation_plan → verify_remediation workflow has no dead ends.