Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to FullStack Audit MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI clients to inspect local software structure, code, and runtime behavior through evidence-backed analysis, including sources, coverage, and limitations.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables compatible AI coding agents to inspect authorized software artifacts, analyze JavaScript/TypeScript and native binaries, optionally perform Ghidra decompilation, and produce verifiable evidence-linked technical reports.
      11
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Evidence-backed, read-only codebase diagnostics for coding agents: secrets, dependency, RLS, and source-impact audits with a verify loop and PR review verdicts. Never writes files or uses the network by default.
      7
      114 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding assistants to inspect local and remote repositories through sandboxed tools that surface project overviews, structure, dependency audits, Git churn hotspots, and a heuristic health score. It also supports safe GitHub issue searching and creation with built-in duplicate preflight checks, while blocking sensitive files, binary content, and path traversal attacks.
      22 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables Claude to run read-only repository health checks for leaked secrets, code quality, and project structure. Exposes tools to scan repositories, retrieve Markdown or JSON reports, and filter findings by severity, rule, or path while confining access to allowed roots.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a distinct audit phase: discovery, generic heuristics, frontend/backend/security/test reviews, integration tracing, and reporting. The only soft overlap is analyze_code versus the domain-specific reviews (review_security, review_frontend/backend), which all run static heuristics over source, so an agent could be unsure when to use the generic analyzer versus a targeted review. Descriptions mostly clarify these boundaries.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All eight tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (scan_project, analyze_code, review_frontend, generate_audit_report, etc.). The verb prefixes (scan/analyze/review/trace/generate) map predictably to the action performed.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is well-scoped for a static audit server, with each tool covering a coherent slice of the pipeline from discovery through reporting. No tool feels redundant or like filler.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the full audit lifecycle: discovery, code analysis, frontend/backend/security/test review, integration tracing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist, such as no dependency/package vulnerability audit and no remediation guidance, but these are reasonable for a read-only static analyzer.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessOutdated data