by agent-accessibility · MCP Server · ★ 12
Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.
| Stars | 12 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | MCP Server |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Quality Score | 72/100 |
| Open Issues | 15 |
| Last Updated | 2026-10-18 |
| Created | 2026-03-08 |
| Platforms | docker, mcp, python |
| Est. Tokens | ~15k |
Open-source MCP server for your docs. Zero LLM at query time. docker compose up and go.
These tools work well together with KMCP for enhanced workflows:
Looking for a KMCP alternative? If you're comparing KMCP with other mcp server tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Turn feature specs into merged PRs with a self-supervising swarm of coding agents — parallel execution, isolat
🧠 High-performance persistent memory system for Model Context Protocol (MCP) powered by libSQL. Features vect
🏛 [UNDER CONSTRUCTION] A (roman) claude plugin marketplace
Collector/Correlator, Embedded log-based WAF, AI Patterns Classifier
Automatic context preservation for Claude Code. Never lose work to compaction again. 7 hooks, 187 semantic pat
Automated loop driver, slash commands, council automation, MCP browser bridge, and portfolio governance for Cl
Explore other popular mcp server tools:
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: