Skip to main content
Glama
shivamsehgal-afk

abac-validation-mcp-server

by shivamsehgal-afk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Related Servers

Alternatives to abac-validation-mcp-server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • shieldly-mcp by shieldly-io

      shieldly-mcpofficial

      shieldly-io
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to analyze AWS IAM policies and CloudFormation templates for security risks.
      2
      26 npm
      MIT

    • Argus MCP

      lokafinnsw
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI-powered, zero-trust code review with multiple models, supporting single files, git diffs, and multiple files, with security, performance, and architecture checks across 10+ languages.
      13
      MIT

    • MCP Code Reviewer

      parthamehta123
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI-powered code review and improvement, including analysis, refactoring suggestions, and automatic test generation, with an optional agentic loop for iterative refinement.
      MIT
    • GlassTape Policy Builder by GlassTape

      GlassTape Policy Builderofficial

      GlassTape
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Converts natural language security requirements into validated Cerbos YAML policies with automated testing and red-team analysis, enabling AI governance with zero-trust guardrails for tool calls, data access, and compliance frameworks.
      5
      3
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct: validate_abac_changes covers full validation, analyze_cross_component_impact focuses specifically on cross-component work, get_current_changes retrieves diffs, and generate_validation_questions produces questions. The main overlap is between validate_abac_changes and analyze_cross_component_impact, since validation already includes cross-component impact analysis, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tools generally follow verb_object pattern: validate_abac_changes, analyze_cross_component_impact, get_current_changes, generate_validation_questions. All use snake_case with consistent verb-first naming, though the objects vary in form (abac_changes vs cross_component_impact vs current_changes vs validation_questions) making them slightly less uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a well-scoped set for a validation workflow. Each tool represents a distinct stage: get diffs, generate questions, analyze cross-component impact, and validate. This is an appropriate size that feels lean but sufficient for the stated purpose of ABAC change validation.

    Completeness3/5

    The workflow covers retrieving changes, generating questions, analyzing cross-component impact, and validating against requirements. However, there's no dedicated tool for applying validation recommendations or generating a final report/summary, and the coupling between generate_validation_questions and validate_abac_changes (which accepts answers to 8 predefined questions) may leave a gap if questions change. The core loop is covered but reporting and remediation are absent.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources