Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mastyf-ai

mastyf-ai

Official
by mastyf-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to mastyf-ai

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • GuardianShield

      sparkvibe-io
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Universal AI security layer for code scanning, PII detection, prompt injection defense, secret detection, dependency auditing, and audit logging.
      27
      27 PyPI
      3
      Apache 2.0

    • Shrike Security MCP Server

      Shrike-Security
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Protects AI agents from threats like prompt injection, jailbreaks, and SQL injection through a multi-layer scanning pipeline. It also enables PII redaction and rehydration to ensure data privacy during LLM interactions.
      12
      332 npm
      2
      Apache 2.0

    • SentinelMCP

      akemi1tr
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Analyzes inputs and outputs in real-time to protect against prompt injections, data leaks, secrets exposure, and phishing URLs.
      15 npm
      3
      MIT

    • Prompt Rejector MCP

      revsmoke
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Protects AI agents from prompt injection attacks, jailbreak attempts, and common web vulnerabilities by screening untrusted input through semantic LLM analysis and static pattern matching.
      85 npm
      2
      ISC
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 60 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with specific descriptions (e.g., compute_trust_score vs get_agent_reputation). However, the large number of tools introduces some potential confusion, such as between scan_prompt_injection and scan_response_dlp, or between multiple threat forecasting tools.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_security, check_health, list_certified_servers). Minor inconsistencies exist, such as 'agentic_status' vs 'agent_trust_status' and 'run_protocol_fuzzer' vs 'select_fuzz_strategy', but overall the naming is predictable.

    Tool Count2/5

    60 tools is excessively large for a single MCP server. While the domain (security, compliance, trust, monitoring) is broad, the number of tools suggests potential fragmentation. A more modular organization into sub-servers would improve coherence.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers a wide range of security, compliance, and trust operations for MCP servers, including scanning, certification, threat detection, incident response, and policy management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for basic CRUD operations on policies or users, but overall very comprehensive.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources