MCP Security Gateway
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP Security Gateway
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceActs as an MCP gateway between AI agents and upstream tool servers, evaluating YAML policies on every tool call, injecting real credentials at the last mile, scanning requests and responses for secrets, PII, and prompt injection, and recording each action in a tamper-evident audit log. Also supports HTTP forward-proxy governance with rate limiting, cost tracking, and policy replay against historical audit data.4Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides a governance layer for MCP servers, enforcing policy-based allow/deny/approval rules, requiring human approval for risky calls, and recording an auditable trail of every AI agent tool call.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to reach upstream MCP tool servers through a central policy gateway that authenticates each agent, enforces least-privilege and default-deny rules, and applies response obligations such as redaction, inference stripping, PII masking, and truncation. It also records every decision in a tamper-evident, hash-chained audit log that can be verified later.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents and MCP clients to safely access upstream MCP servers through centralized policy enforcement, including allow/deny/approval decisions, schema pinning, circuit breakers, and audit logging.MIT

evav-gatewayofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceGoverned MCP gateway that lets AI agents call tools with policy enforcement, prompt-injection screening, a kill-switch, and tamper-evident signed audit logs.Apache 2.0- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that provides a security gateway for AI agents, enforcing allow/confirm/deny policies on tool calls and requiring human approval for risky operations, with full audit logging.-
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly distinct: one lists customers in a paginated manner, the other fetches a single customer's details. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Both tool names follow the exact same verb_noun pattern: list_customers and read_customer. The naming is perfectly consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels thin, especially given the name 'Security Gateway' which implies a broader scope. However, the two tools cover a minimal read-only customer lookup workflow, so it is borderline but not extreme.
The server provides only read operations (list and get) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. For a customer-focused toolset, this is a notable gap unless the server is intentionally read-only. The mismatch between the server name and the tool domain further obscures expected completeness.