Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
pageguard

pageguard-mcp

Official
by pageguard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

pageguard-mcp

MCP (Model Context Protocol) 服务器，将 PageGuard 隐私合规性扫描作为工具提供给 AI 编码助手。适用于 Claude Code、Cursor、Windsurf、ChatGPT 以及任何兼容 MCP 的环境。

功能特点

  • 本地扫描 — 从项目的 package.json、配置文件和 .env 文件中检测跟踪技术、Cookie 和第三方数据收集。无需 API 密钥，无需网络请求。

  • URL 扫描 — 扫描实时网站的隐私合规性问题，包括风险评分和合规差距分析。

  • 文档生成 — 根据检测到的技术生成 AI 编写的法律文档（隐私政策、服务条款、Cookie 政策等）。

Related MCP server: humantext-mcp-server

安装

Claude Code

添加到项目的 .mcp.json 或全局 MCP 配置中：

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

Cursor

添加到 Cursor 设置 > MCP Servers：

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

Windsurf

添加到您的 MCP 配置中：

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

环境变量

变量

必需

描述

PAGEGUARD_API_KEY

否（本地扫描）/ 是（URL 扫描、文档生成）

来自 getpageguard.com 的 API 密钥

PAGEGUARD_API_URL

否

覆盖 API 基础 URL（默认：https://www.getpageguard.com）

工具

pageguard_scan_local

扫描本地项目目录以查找与隐私相关的技术。

输入：

  • path (可选) — 项目目录的绝对路径。默认为当前工作目录。

输出： 包含检测到的技术、数据类型、Cookie 和第三方处理器的 ComplianceReport JSON。

pageguard_scan_url

扫描实时网站 URL 以查找隐私合规性问题。

输入：

  • url (必需) — 要扫描的完整 URL，例如 https://example.com

输出： 包含风险评分、检测到的技术和合规差距的 ComplianceReport JSON。

pageguard_generate_docs

为已扫描的网站生成 AI 编写的法律合规文档。

输入：

  • scanId (必需) — 来自先前 pageguard_scan_url 结果的扫描 ID

  • documentType (可选) — 以下之一：single ($29), bundle ($49), addon_security ($19), addon_a11y ($19), addon_schema ($19), app_bundle ($39), submission_guide ($19)。默认为 bundle。

输出： 生成的文档内容。

定价

扫描是免费的。文档生成需要积分：

  • 隐私文档 ($29) — 隐私政策 + 服务条款 + Cookie 政策

  • 全套修复 ($49) — 所有文档 + 安全指南 + 无障碍报告 + Schema 标记

  • 应用包 ($39) — 隐私文档 + 应用商店提交指南

  • 附加组件 (每个 $19) — 安全指南、无障碍报告、Schema 标记、提交指南

  • 批量包 — 5 个 $79，15 个 $149，50 个 $349

在 getpageguard.com/#pricing 获取 API 密钥。

许可证

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