Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Luvv MCPServer

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Security scanning MCP server. Semgrep integration, SARIF parsing, baseline diffing, framework-aware ruleset selection, and automated finding triage.
      5 npm
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides a comprehensive interface to Semgrep, enabling users to scan code for security vulnerabilities, create custom rules, and analyze scan results through the Model Context Protocol.
      6
      688
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Local MCP server that scans code for security issues (secrets, dependencies, configurations, risky patterns) and integrates with GitHub Copilot in VS Code for automated pre-commit reviews.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for Cursor that scans codebases for security issues including hardcoded secrets, SAST, vulnerable dependencies, and IaC misconfigurations.
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Security scanner and MCP server that catches dangerous patterns in MCP servers and AI agent projects, such as leaked secrets, shell execution, and prompt-injection text. Runs as both a CLI and MCP server with CI-friendly severity gates.
      2
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'run_security_scan' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive.

    Tool Count3/5

    Having only one tool feels thin for a general-purpose server, but for a focused security scanning utility it is borderline acceptable. The count is at the low end of reasonable.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks any other tools beyond the security scan, providing no CRUD or lifecycle operations. It is severely limited for a typical MCP server, with significant gaps in functionality.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues