Skip to main content
Glama
naoanao

Safe AI Agent — Guard Checks

by naoanao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Safe AI Agent — Guard Checks

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • agent-guardprivate

      ipezygj
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Safety checks an agent runs before it acts — flags malicious packages, destructive shell commands, secret leaks, and web-backend holes before execution.
      8
      MIT

    • appsecradar

      Othm1ne
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI editors such as Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf and VS Code to scan a project for common AI-introduced security mistakes — leaked keys, open Supabase/Firebase data, missing auth, unverified Stripe webhooks, SQL injection and more — and return findings with exact fix instructions. It also provides a guided prompt that walks an agent through fixing critical issues one by one and verifying each fix by re-scanning, without ever editing files or rotating keys itself.
      2
      MIT

    • agent-crashtest

      glibey
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A read-only MCP server that lets agents scan a project's AI agent setup — Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, MCP servers and instruction files — and surface security findings such as the lethal trifecta, broad permissions, exposed secrets and unpinned packages.
      78 npm
      MIT

    • UpToCode

      DDYRich72
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      It lets clients request design-time audits of Python and TypeScript agent applications for defects such as unbounded loops, ungated destructive actions, weak argument validation, insufficient run budgets, absent resiliency controls, overlooked evals, and poor observability. Findings include supporting evidence and feed an approval-driven mechanism for reviewing proposed fixes without mutating the original source.
      MIT

    • opzyai

      thfothijn
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Local-first security check for AI coding agents — finds hardcoded secrets, exposed .env files, git-history leaks and vulnerable dependencies (OSV), entirely on your machine. Ask your agent "is this safe to ship?" and get a Launch Readiness score with a fix for every finding.
      MIT

    • inkog

      inkog-io
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Security co-pilot for AI agents. Scans for vulnerabilities like prompt injection, infinite loops, and token bombing in AI Agents, audits MCP servers, verifies AGENTS.md governance, and generates EU AI Act compliance reports.
      10
      160 npm
      3
      Apache 2.0
    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

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools occupy genuinely different modes: auditing a config artifact (API key scopes), statically checking a code snippet, and explaining a concept. The one soft edge is between check_idempotency_pattern and explain_guard_pattern, since 'idempotency_key' is also one of the explainable patterns, so an agent asking about idempotency could plausibly reach for either first.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All three follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_api_keys, check_idempotency_pattern, explain_guard_pattern) with unambiguous, domain-specific nouns. The verbs also accurately signal the mode of each tool: audit vs check vs explain.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is on the thin side but defensible for a tightly scoped 'guard checks' server where each tool maps to one clear input type (key entries, code, pattern name). No padding or redundancy, though the surface feels minimal enough that additional coverage seems intended rather than optional.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool set is asymmetric: explain_guard_pattern advertises six patterns (idempotency_key, approval_gate, outbox, key_inventory, circuit_breaker, signed_approval_link) but only idempotency has a corresponding verification tool, and key_inventory is only partly covered by audit_api_keys. An agent can learn about approval gates and outboxes but has no way to check them, creating dead ends in the advertised workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources