GuardRails-MCP
PYPI · GUARDRAILS-MCP
Local prompt regression tracker with six fictional cases and evidence for human review.
Available components
Last scanned (1 day ago)
Scores higher than 87% of PyPI servers
Category Testing and QA
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs setuptools.build_meta at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 3 of 34 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to TAM-DS/guardrails-mcp). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 18 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability64
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 104 tokens (~26/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management63
- Stability observed for 19 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (25% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 27 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/guardrails-mcp@0.1.1
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | TAM-DS/guardrails-mcp |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/TAM-DS/guardrails-mcp/.github/workflows/publish-pypi.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3282890625 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:5ae0a82e2536c37a3ff83b0cb052013de4eb8bab873153337c00ef632135f1b4 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | setuptools.build_meta |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 34 packages
| Packages resolved | 34 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 3 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
get_run ~32
Read one local run, including checks, outputs, provenance, and known limitations.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_cases ~19
List the six fictional, labeled cases and evaluation limitations.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_runs ~26
List up to 30 local runs; running records can be stale after a hard crash.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
run_demo ~27
Run seeded fixtures with zero API calls; persist a local run. This is not model performance.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the GuardRails-MCP server?
GuardRails-MCP runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx guardrails-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · guardrails-mcp
claude mcp add tam-ds-guardrails-mcp -- uvx guardrails-mcp
What is the GuardRails-MCP server?
GuardRails-MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.TAM-DS/guardrails-mcp. Local prompt regression tracker with six fictional cases and evidence for human review. This page covers its PyPI package (guardrails-mcp).
Is the GuardRails-MCP server safe to use?
GuardRails-MCP scores 85 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 4 November 2026. Its build provenance is signed and verified. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the GuardRails-MCP server expose?
GuardRails-MCP exposes 4 tools: list_cases, run_demo, list_runs, get_run. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 104 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the GuardRails-MCP server still maintained?
GuardRails-MCP is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the GuardRails-MCP server under?
GuardRails-MCP declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.