A
licenseB
qualityC
maintenanceAn AI-native code security audit MCP server that supports multi-language AST analysis, call graph analysis, vulnerability detection, and AI deep audit.
7
1
MIT
codesafe-audit-mcp
by windhxy
Related Servers
Alternatives to codesafe-audit-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for automated architectural mapping, security vulnerability detection, ML asset tracking, and code metrics in local repositories.-
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceEnterprise-grade MCP server for static application security testing with multi-tool integration, compliance verification, AI-powered remediation, and multi-tenant management.2310MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for static security analysis of Android application source code.2-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for AI-powered code security, quality, and performance review. Enables auditing code directly from VS Code via right-click or MCP tools.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that provides AI coding assistants with access to call graphs, data flows, and security analysis for multi-file vulnerability detection.139Apache 2.0
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Scored across 10 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: listing tasks vs summarizing tasks, listing bugs vs summarizing bugs. However, codesafe_bug_detail and codesafe_audit_bug overlap in providing rule definitions and taint traces, differing mainly in whether sink code and judging criteria are included. This overlap could cause an agent to select the wrong one when a raw detail view is needed versus a judgment-ready context.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tool names share the codesafe_ prefix and use snake_case, but the internal convention is mixed. Several use verb_noun (list_tasks, list_bugs, submit_audit), while others use noun_noun (task_summary, bug_summary, bug_detail) or verb_preposition (audit_by_rule). This lack of a uniform pattern, while still readable, reduces predictability.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a code audit domain. It covers task discovery, defect exploration, audit context preparation, and verdict submission without excessive redundancy or trivial tools. The count fits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides a complete workflow: list tasks, get task summaries, aggregate defects by rule, page through individual bugs, fetch detailed defect data, retrieve source code, prepare audit contexts (single and batch), check audit status, and submit verdicts. No critical operations are missing for the stated purpose of auditing code security defects.
Maintenance
ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues