K-Guard MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to K-Guard MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI coding tools to scan projects for security vulnerabilities, hardcoded secrets, injection flaws, and privacy violations with 699 rules and 76 MCP tools, all running locally with zero telemetry.6 npm7MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible AI agents to scan code for leaked secrets, copyleft licenses, unprotected routes, missing privacy policies, and risky card handling before committing or shipping.115 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that enables AI coding tools to scan projects for security vulnerabilities, secret leaks, and compliance issues, generating Korean-language audit reports.159PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to run deterministic, fully local static security and compliance audits of code, configurations, and dependencies through 32 MCP tools covering 24 vulnerability categories. It also detects the project stack, generates risk reports and checklists, suggests stack-aware remediations, and re-validates fixes to confirm vulnerabilities were eliminated.321MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI coding assistants to detect exposed secrets and unsafe dynamic execution patterns in real time using regex, entropy analysis, and Python AST inspection before changes are finalized. It supports MCP stdio integration for Claude and can also be run as a CLI or CI/pre-commit security guardrail.4MIT

gadrielofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides on-machine security scanning for Copilot-generated code, including SAST, secrets, dependency, container, and configuration checks, plus AI-specific risk detection, with findings and fixes available via MCP tools.Apache 2.0
TDQS
Scored across 28 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, a few near-duplicates exist (e.g., observe_mcp_event vs observe_mcp_events, security_gate vs guardian_audit) that could slightly confuse an agent. Overall, the set is well-separated.
Tool names mix conventions inconsistently. Many follow verb_noun (scan_workspace, create_field_campaign_template, explain_rule), but several use noun_noun (software_composition_audit, data_release_gate, field_campaign_status, security_gate). There is also singular/plural inconsistency (observe_mcp_event vs observe_mcp_events). This makes naming patterns unpredictable.
With 28 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While the domain is broad, many tools overlap in function (multiple validation and audit tools). The server could consolidate some related tools (e.g., separate scan_* tools) without losing clarity.
The tool surface covers the main security workflow: scanning, validation, audits, templates, explanations, fixes, and status gates. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit rule management or history retrieval), but the core lifecycle is present and agents can complete typical tasks.