Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to mcp-vaara

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides permission gates and tamper-evident audit logging for AI agent tool executions, with declarative policies, consent ladders, and hash-chained verification.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Tamper-evident audit trail for AI agent tool calls. Cryptographically signed, hash-chained records that prove what your agents did.
      3
      11 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A governance proxy for AI tools — every MCP/agent tool call is policy-gated, secret-redacted, and written to a hash-chained, offline-verifiable audit trail.
      13
      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.
      11 npm
      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
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      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

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    vaara_check and vaara_intercept overlap substantially—both classify, score risk with conformal prediction, and return allow/deny/escalate. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them (check = no audit recording; intercept = full audit trail), which resolves most confusion, but the boundary still requires careful reading.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All four tools follow a strict 'vaara_' prefix plus clear verb_noun pattern (check, intercept, report_outcome, verify_receipt). The convention is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count4/5

    Four tools is a tight, well-scoped set for a risk-scoring and governance service, and each has a distinct role in the decision lifecycle. Slightly thin but no tool feels redundant or filler.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers scoring, interception with audit recording, outcome feedback, and receipt verification, forming a closed loop. A read/list tool for the audit trail itself is absent, a minor gap agents could work around via verify_receipt.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessResponsive