LeakageLens MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to LeakageLens MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables Claude to audit AI/ML projects for production readiness through deterministic static analysis, check ML system descriptions, compare model configurations, and generate readiness reports or deployment checklists. It returns scored, evidence-based findings with explicit unknowns while never executing submitted code or accessing the network.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEvidence-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.4367 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables local inspection of AI model deployment artifacts without executing model code, returning SHA-256, structure, defect analysis, and evidence-gap findings in Gemini CLI conversations.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAudits AI agent skills for safety using static, semantic, adversarial, and supply-chain analysis, providing scores and risk flags. Can be run via CLI, CI, or as an MCP tool from Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex.16 PyPI2Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables local candidate review of ONNX or TFLite models by checking static evidence and externally measured results against a fixed policy, producing accept/reject/hold evidence ZIPs for AI agent workflows.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides audit_plugin_health and prepare_semantic_review tools for deterministic inspection of Codex plugins and Agent Skills, generating evidence-backed reports without executing or transmitting target code.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct stage of leakage detection: profiling, dataset auditing, code auditing, and feature availability review. However, profile_dataset and audit_dataset could be confused by an agent since both operate on datasets, though their descriptions help separate general profiling from leakage-specific auditing.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: profile_dataset, audit_dataset, audit_training_code, and review_feature_availability. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
Four tools is well-scoped for a specialized leakage-detection server. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, and the count feels appropriate rather than thin or bloated.
The tool surface covers the core leakage-detection workflow: profile data, audit data for leakage, audit training code, and verify feature availability. Minor gaps exist around remediation or actionable reporting after an audit, but the main detection loop is complete.