thinkneo-control-plane
OfficialRelated Servers
Alternatives to thinkneo-control-plane
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides AI security guardrails through Javelin's platform to detect harmful content, prompt injection attempts, and language policies. Enables comprehensive content safety analysis with trust & safety detection, prompt injection protection, and language identification.1-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceGovernance proxy for MCP servers. Wraps any MCP server with policy evaluation, human approval workflows, and hash-chain audit trails. Supports stdio and Streamable HTTP transports.113 npm14Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenance53 regulatory compliance evidence tools across 3 MCP servers for AI agents. MiCA authorization status, DORA evidence packs, stablecoin risk scoring (105+ tokens), macro intelligence (86 FRED series). Every response ECDSA-signed (ES256K), blockchain-anchored, audit-ready. Free tier, OAuth 2.0.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceA secure middleware that intercepts AI agent tool calls to evaluate risks and manage human-in-the-loop approvals via durable Inngest workflows. It ensures compliance with standards like the EU AI Act by pausing high-risk actions until authorized by a human reviewer.1-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAnalyzes security compliance documents (ISMS-P, NIST, CIS Benchmark) in PDF/TXT format, extracts requirements, recommends AWS services, and evaluates implementation difficulty and timelines through structured JSON output.-
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceProvides a comprehensive suite of 76 tools for AWS cloud resource optimization, cost management, and infrastructure monitoring. It enables users to identify unused resources, analyze cost trends, right-size capacity, and maintain security compliance through natural language.76MIT
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP Guard Server - Budget control, approval workflows and audit logging for AI agents (Claude Code, Cursor, ChatGPT)MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides a governance gateway for LLM and agent traffic via MCP, blocking prompt injection, redacting PII, enforcing per-tenant token budgets, and caching repeat questions semantically. Enables AI agents to route model calls through the same guardrails instead of calling providers directly.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceUniversal MCP router and gateway that bridges LLM agents to OpenAPI, GraphQL, and AWS Lambda services with ISO/IEC 42001 AI governance, RBAC, PII redaction, semantic tool routing, and a web dashboard.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceRuntime governance and budget guardrails for Claude Code, Cursor, and autonomous AI agents. Enforces per-session spend caps, verifier safety gates, and runaway loop prevention.24673 npm364Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides a secure control plane for MCP-powered AI agents, enabling role-based tool authorization, streaming PII redaction, token limiting, and provider fallback through a React dashboard.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceAn enterprise infrastructure layer for the Model Context Protocol that provides authentication, RBAC, audit logging, and rate limiting for tool calls. It acts as a secure proxy between AI agents and MCP servers to ensure security and compliance in production environments.28 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 8 tools
Tools are generally distinct with clear domains: policy (permissions), guardrail (content safety), spend (analytics), budget (limits), compliance (audit), alerts (incidents), and provider health. Minor semantic overlap exists between check_spend and get_budget_status (both financial), and between check_policy and evaluate_guardrail (both validation), but descriptions clarify their distinct scopes.
Consistent snake_case prefixing (thinkneo_) and mostly verb_noun structure (check, evaluate, get, list, schedule). Minor deviation with provider_status which lacks a verb prefix, breaking the pattern established by get_budget_status and get_compliance_status. Verbs vary (check/evaluate/get) but remain readable.
Eight tools is a reasonable count for an AI governance control plane, covering policy, cost, compliance, and operational monitoring. The inclusion of schedule_demo (a sales/marketing function) is slightly incongruous with the operational focus of the other seven tools, but doesn't bloat the set.
Strong observability coverage (read-only status checks, spend analysis, alert listing) but lacks expected control plane capabilities: no tools to create/update policies, set budgets, configure guardrails, or manage/acknowledge alerts. The surface is adequate for monitoring but incomplete for 'control' operations implied by the server name.