Skip to main content
Glama
ultus-net

workflow-guard-mcp

by ultus-net

Related Servers

Alternatives to workflow-guard-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to evaluate actions against team-defined policies, record decisions, and obtain human approvals for potentially risky operations.
      88 npm
      1
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enforces deterministic policies on AI agent tool calls, evaluating actions against compliance modules (SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, etc.) and returning ALLOW, BLOCK, or CONSTRAIN decisions with an audit trail.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enforces deterministic policy decisions on AI agent tool calls, supporting allow, deny, correct, escalate, and human review actions with verifiable audit receipts.
      200 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enforces policy controls for AI agents, including spend limits, action approvals, kill switch, scoped credentials, dry-run diffs, loop prevention, and auditable hash-chained logs.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables governed tool-calling agents with policy decisions, optional human approval, hash-chained audit logging, and deterministic evaluation.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables coding agents to perform workspace-confined file operations, read-only Git inspection, and structured shell commands, while requiring out-of-band human approval for mutations and external executions and maintaining an audit trail.
      14
      3
      -

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    guard_check and guard_status have clearly distinct purposes: one evaluates an action, the other reports capabilities and enforcement boundaries. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent guard_ prefix with lowercase underscore naming. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin even for its narrow purpose. The count is borderline, sitting at the low end of what might be considered a minimal but workable surface.

    Completeness4/5

    The two tools cover the core guard workflow (evaluate action, check status) with only minor gaps like listing specific rules or explaining decisions. Agents can likely work around these by using the provided tools.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues