MCP Security Gateway
Related Servers
Alternatives to MCP Security Gateway
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- 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 gradedqualityBmaintenanceGoverned 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 gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP 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.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to safely call MCP tools through a security gateway that enforces per-role authorization and least-privilege tool scoping.1-

SentinelGateofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceOpen-source MCP proxy that enforces security policies, content scanning, and audit logging between AI agents and tool servers25AGPL 3.0- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceSecurity-enforcing MCP proxy that sits between an AI agent and any number of downstream MCP servers, intercepting every tool call through a capability-token policy gateway that can allow, deny, or escalate to human approval before the call reaches any real tool. It also exposes built-in operator tools for approval workflows, audit trail queries, token management, voice/HUD output, and hierarchical2113Apache 2.0
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.