Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to TrustHarness

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A cryptographic sidecar proxy that tests MCP tools for OWASP vulnerabilities before deployment. Automatically sandbox and audit your AI agents' tool calls to ensure secure infrastructure.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables defenders to deploy a decoy MCP tool server that records and fingerprints how LLM agents probe, escalate, and persist, without exposing real systems.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A security research MCP server for testing tool call safety with deterministic policies like allowlists, path boundary enforcement, SSRF prevention, output redaction, and prompt injection detection, without requiring external LLMs or API keys.
      6
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Security middleware for LLM agents. Authorize tool calls, scan for injection, quarantine poisoned memory, and redact PII — all through MCP. 0% injection success rate on 1,054 tested attacks.
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Proxies MCP traffic between a client and a downstream server to enforce runtime policies on tool declarations, call arguments, and results, including allowlisting, sandboxing, secret and egress controls, and injection detection. It also includes a deterministic benchmark for measuring which security controls stop which attacks.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      This MCP server provides a stateful, resettable, verifiable API runtime that gates every tool call, enabling agents to run long workflows against provider-shaped environments without live provider write access. It records decisions, side effects, and outcome evidence for replayable, verifiable benchmark runs.
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: reading issues, PRs, files, recording commands/comments/commits, approving, and merging. The boundaries between tools are clear, with no overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_issue, run_command, merge_pull_request). The minor use of 'read_file' instead of 'get_file' is still in the same style and does not introduce inconsistency.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for the apparent domain of simulating a repository workflow. Each tool earns its place, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the main PR lifecycle: reading issues/PRs, simulating commands/comments/commits, requesting approval, and merging. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a way to list resources or modify files, but these are not critical for the core workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues