Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to code-audit-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to run deterministic, fully local static security and compliance audits of code, configurations, and dependencies through 32 MCP tools covering 24 vulnerability categories. It also detects the project stack, generates risk reports and checklists, suggests stack-aware remediations, and re-validates fixes to confirm vulnerabilities were eliminated.
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to perform comprehensive, zero-infrastructure codebase analysis through 24 MCP tools, covering security, quality, architecture, type safety, git history, and dead code detection with high precision and local privacy.
      45
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible agents to submit source code for automated SAST/SCA security audits paid via x402 USDC micropayments on Base, returning structured vulnerability findings, CWE IDs, and optional remediated code patches.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables LLMs to analyze any codebase from a GitHub URL, producing deep reports with code snippets, line numbers, and prioritized suggestions. It orchestrates seven MCP tools through LangGraph to perform code review, onboarding, bug investigation, and complexity analysis.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    audit and check are distinct: audit gives a summary across all checks, while check drills into a specific check with filters. The descriptions make the boundary clear, though both deal with findings and could momentarily confuse a new agent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use single, lowercase verbs (audit, check), which is consistent, but they don't follow the common verb_noun pattern. No mixing of conventions, so readability is high.

    Tool Count4/5

    Two tools is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but they are well-scoped: audit provides the overview and check handles per-check details via a parameterized interface. Each earns its place, though the surface feels minimal.

    Completeness3/5

    Core read functionality is covered: summary and detailed findings with pagination/filtering. However, there is no way to list available check names, manage false positives, or run individual checks directly, which are notable gaps for a code audit workflow.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues