Skip to main content
Glama
x-asd

pr-guard-mcp

by x-asd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to pr-guard-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • gitlumen-mcp by gitlumen-team

      gitlumen-mcpofficial

      gitlumen-team
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to screen GitHub repositories and pull requests for risk analysis, generating risk scores, findings, and merge-readiness signals.
      5
      -

    • PR Guardian MCP

      maiv3n
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Analyzes GitHub Pull Request diffs for security vulnerabilities and data leaks, using a deterministic filter to skip trivial changes and an AI-powered analysis for logic changes.
      1
      MIT

    • opzyai

      thfothijn
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Local-first security check for AI coding agents — finds hardcoded secrets, exposed .env files, git-history leaks and vulnerable dependencies (OSV), entirely on your machine. Ask your agent "is this safe to ship?" and get a Launch Readiness score with a fix for every finding.
      MIT
    • GitGuardian MCP Server by GitGuardian

      GitGuardian MCP Serverofficial

      GitGuardian
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to scan projects for leaked secrets and manage security incidents using GitGuardian's comprehensive API. It supports automated secret detection, honeytoken creation, and remediation workflows to secure codebases without context switching.
      37
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    D1.7/5.0

    Scored across 1 tool

    Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or confusion between tools. The lone tool is inherently distinct.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool name trivially follows a consistent pattern. The verb_noun structure (analyze_pr_diff) is clear and conventional.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server meant to guard pull requests. This feels extremely thin and likely insufficient for real-world use.

    Completeness1/5

    The server exposes only one operation with no description, making it impossible to assess coverage. There is no evidence of a complete lifecycle or workflow, and agents cannot perform any related actions beyond this single vague analysis.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources