Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
pageguard

pageguard-mcp

Official
by pageguard
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

pageguard-mcp

PageGuardのプライバシーコンプライアンススキャン機能を、AIコーディングアシスタント用のツールとして提供するMCP（Model Context Protocol）サーバーです。Claude Code、Cursor、Windsurf、ChatGPT、およびMCP互換環境で動作します。

機能

  • ローカルスキャン — プロジェクトの package.json、設定ファイル、.env ファイルから、トラッキング技術、Cookie、サードパーティによるデータ収集を検出します。APIキーは不要で、ネットワークリクエストも発生しません。

  • URLスキャン — ライブウェブサイトをスキャンし、プライバシーコンプライアンスの問題、リスクスコア、コンプライアンスのギャップ分析を行います。

  • ドキュメント生成 — 検出された技術に合わせて、AIが作成した法務文書（プライバシーポリシー、利用規約、Cookieポリシーなど）を生成します。

Related MCP server: humantext-mcp-server

インストール

Claude Code

プロジェクトの .mcp.json またはグローバルMCP設定に追加してください：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pageguard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["pageguard-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Cursor

Cursorの「設定」>「MCPサーバー」に追加してください：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pageguard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["pageguard-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Windsurf

MCP設定に追加してください：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "pageguard": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["pageguard-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

環境変数

変数

必須

説明

PAGEGUARD_API_KEY

いいえ（ローカルスキャン） / はい（URLスキャン、ドキュメント生成）

getpageguard.com から取得したAPIキー

PAGEGUARD_API_URL

いいえ

APIベースURLの上書き（デフォルト: https://www.getpageguard.com）

ツール

pageguard_scan_local

ローカルのプロジェクトディレクトリをスキャンし、プライバシーに関連する技術を検出します。

入力:

  • path (任意) — プロジェクトディレクトリの絶対パス。デフォルトは現在の作業ディレクトリです。

出力: 検出された技術、データ型、Cookie、サードパーティプロセッサを含むComplianceReport JSON。

pageguard_scan_url

ライブウェブサイトのURLをスキャンし、プライバシーコンプライアンスの問題を検出します。

入力:

  • url (必須) — スキャンする完全なURL（例: https://example.com）

出力: リスクスコア、検出された技術、コンプライアンスのギャップを含むComplianceReport JSON。

pageguard_generate_docs

スキャンしたサイト向けに、AIが作成した法務コンプライアンス文書を生成します。

入力:

  • scanId (必須) — 前回の pageguard_scan_url の結果から得られるスキャンID

  • documentType (任意) — 次のいずれか: single ($29), bundle ($49), addon_security ($19), addon_a11y ($19), addon_schema ($19), app_bundle ($39), submission_guide ($19)。デフォルトは bundle です。

出力: 生成されたドキュメントの内容。

料金

スキャンは無料です。ドキュメント生成にはクレジットが必要です：

  • プライバシー文書 ($29) — プライバシーポリシー + 利用規約 + Cookieポリシー

  • すべて修正 ($49) — すべての文書 + セキュリティガイド + アクセシビリティレポート + スキーママークアップ

  • アプリバンドル ($39) — プライバシー文書 + アプリストア申請ガイド

  • アドオン (各$19) — セキュリティガイド、アクセシビリティレポート、スキーママークアップ、申請ガイド

  • バルクパック — 5個で$79、15個で$149、50個で$349

APIキーは getpageguard.com/#pricing から取得してください。

ライセンス

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools
pageguard_generate_docsA

Generate AI-written legal compliance documents (privacy policy, terms of service, cookie policy, etc.) for a previously scanned site. Requires a scanId from a prior URL scan and a PAGEGUARD_API_KEY with available credits. Document types: 'single' ($29 — privacy + terms + cookie), 'bundle' ($49 — everything), 'addon_security' ($19), 'addon_a11y' ($19), 'addon_schema' ($19), 'app_bundle' ($39), 'submission_guide' ($19).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanIdYesThe scan ID from a previous pageguard_scan_url result
documentTypeNoProduct type to generate. One of: single, bundle, addon_security, addon_a11y, addon_schema, app_bundle, submission_guide. Defaults to 'bundle'.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: pricing for each document type ($29/$49/etc.), credit consumption requirement, and AI-authored nature of outputs. It lacks details on error states (e.g., insufficient credits) or output format, but covers the essential cost and auth behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently packed with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose before listing prerequisites and pricing details. The document type list is dense but necessary. A 5 would require better visual separation between prerequisites and pricing, but it earns high marks for information density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description comprehensively covers inputs, costs, and prerequisites, but omits what the tool returns (e.g., download URL, raw text, file ID) despite having no output schema. For a paid document generation tool, this output gap is a significant omission, though the input documentation is thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds substantial semantic value by explaining what each documentType actually contains and costs—information absent from the schema. For example, it clarifies 'single' means '$29 — privacy + terms + cookie' while 'bundle' means '$49 — everything', which is crucial for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Generate[s] AI-written legal compliance documents' with specific examples (privacy policy, terms of service) and context (for a previously scanned site). It uses a specific verb+resource combination and implicitly distinguishes from sibling scan tools by noting the 'previously scanned site' requirement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear prerequisites: 'Requires a scanId from a prior URL scan' and 'PAGEGUARD_API_KEY with available credits'. This effectively signals when to use the tool (after scanning) and what is needed. It could explicitly name the sibling tool (pageguard_scan_url) to use first, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

pageguard_scan_localA

Scan a local project directory for privacy-relevant technologies by checking package.json dependencies, config files, and .env files against known tracking/analytics signatures. No API key or network access needed. Returns a ComplianceReport with detected technologies, data types collected, cookies, and third-party processors.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoAbsolute path to the project directory. Defaults to the current working directory.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates operational constraints (no API key/network), file access patterns (package.json, .env, config files), and return value structure (ComplianceReport with specific fields). It does not mention side effects or idempotency, preventing a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two information-dense sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanism, operational requirements, and return value. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description compensates effectively by detailing the return structure (ComplianceReport contents) and operational requirements. For a single-parameter scanning tool, this provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema has 100% coverage describing the path parameter, the description adds valuable semantic context about what constitutes a valid target directory (one containing package.json and config files to scan) and implies the nature of the input, exceeding the baseline expectations for fully documented schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action (scan), target (local project directory), and mechanism (checking package.json, config files, and .env files against tracking signatures). It clearly distinguishes from sibling pageguard_scan_url by emphasizing 'local' and from pageguard_generate_docs by focusing on detection rather than documentation generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear contextual guidance through 'No API key or network access needed,' implicitly positioning this as the offline/local alternative to pageguard_scan_url. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison statements naming the siblings as alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

pageguard_scan_urlA

Scan a live website URL for privacy compliance issues. Detects tracking technologies, cookies, third-party data collection, and compliance gaps by analyzing the actual deployed site. Returns a ComplianceReport with risk score, detected technologies, and compliance gaps. Optionally uses PAGEGUARD_API_KEY env var for authenticated requests.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full URL to scan, e.g. https://example.com

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It successfully documents the return value structure ('ComplianceReport with risk score...'), authentication requirements ('PAGEGUARD_API_KEY env var'), and scope of analysis ('Detects tracking technologies...'). Minor gap: does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or cache behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences each earn their place: (1) core purpose, (2) detection capabilities, (3) return structure, (4) authentication. Information is front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return format and authentication mechanism. The single parameter is sufficiently documented in the schema. Minor deduction for not mentioning potential side effects (e.g., network requests to target URL) or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('The full URL to scan...'). The description mentions 'live website URL' but adds no additional semantic detail (format constraints, validation rules) beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('live website URL') targeting 'privacy compliance issues.' The phrase 'live website URL' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool 'pageguard_scan_local' (implying local files), while 'scan' differentiates from 'pageguard_generate_docs'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by specifying 'live website URL' and 'actual deployed site,' implicitly guiding users to choose this over 'scan_local' for local files. However, it does not explicitly state 'when-not' rules or explicitly name sibling alternatives for direct comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedpageguard_generate_docs
    • First observedpageguard_scan_local
    • First observedpageguard_scan_url
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The three tools serve distinctly different purposes: scan_local analyzes codebase dependencies, scan_url analyzes live websites, and generate_docs produces legal documents from scan results. No functional overlap exists between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pageguard_verb_noun snake_case pattern. The scanning tools use parallel naming (scan_local, scan_url) to distinguish targets, while generate_docs clearly indicates its document creation purpose.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is appropriate for this focused domain, covering the essential scan-local, scan-production, and generate-documentation workflow. While functional, the surface is minimal and could benefit from supporting tools like get_scan or list_documents.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is covered: dual scanning capabilities and document generation. Minor gaps exist in document lifecycle management (no retrieval of previous scans or generated documents), but agents can work with immediate return values.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • humantext-mcp-server

    humantextpro
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    AI text detection and humanization for Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf. Check if text sounds AI-generated, improve it to read naturally, and verify results — all without leaving your editor.
    59
    MIT
  • Sekrd Security Scanner by sekrdcom

    Sekrd Security Scannerofficial

    sekrdcom
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables deep security auditing of web applications directly from AI IDEs including Cursor and Claude Code. Scans URLs for vulnerabilities, returns security scores with SHIP/BLOCK verdicts, and provides specific fix prompts for remediation.
    3
    -

  • aigently

    aelbuni
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Securely feeds summarized expert security rules into your coding assistance Claude Code, Cursor, etc — zero config, no API key.
    -

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pageguard/pageguard-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server