Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to K-Guard MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      12 npm
      7
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      50 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables AI coding tools to scan projects for security vulnerabilities, secret leaks, and compliance issues, generating Korean-language audit reports.
      11
      9
      PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Commit-time audit engine for AI coding agents. Scans git diffs with 24 audit rules, writes HMAC-signed tamper-evident audit history, and ships MCP tools for governance aggregation.
      104
      45
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables LLM agents to enforce security policies by authorizing tool calls, scanning for prompt injection, checking memory writes, redacting PII, and accessing audit trails through MCP.
      -
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Local MCP server that scans code for security issues (secrets, dependencies, configurations, risky patterns) and integrates with GitHub Copilot in VS Code for automated pre-commit reviews.
      -

    TDQS

    C2.5/5.0

    Scored across 28 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues