原型 · 预览版:收录官方注册中心里的全部服务器,每 30 分钟同步一次。评价和账户功能将在后续阶段推出。
PopNx MCP为使用 AI 的人准备的 MCP 服务器 · 用大白话讲清楚

Agent Guardrail

作者:rudimentall1版本 1.0.2i★ –i在你的电脑上运行
注册名称io.github.rudimentall1/agent-guardrail

安装

概览

作者提供的说明(英文原文)

Deterministic policy firewall for AI agent tool calls - YAML rules, not a fuzzy risk score.

PopNx MCP 的三大支柱

这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。

它能帮你做什么

我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。

  • 连接方式: 在你的电脑上运行
  • 传输方式: stdio
  • 分类: 网络安全

安装

选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。

安装之前

  • 基础检查:1 项中通过 1 项
  • 在你的电脑上运行,拥有你的用户账户的权限(文件、网络、应用)。
  • 注册中心没有列出需要填写的密钥。

你需要

  • PyPI已安装 Python 的 uv(用于 uvx 命令)

你用的是哪个应用?

在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。

打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "agent-guardrail": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "guardrail-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

在终端中运行这条命令

claude mcp add agent-guardrail -- uvx guardrail-mcp

在 Cursor 中打开

或者自己复制设置

粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "agent-guardrail": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "guardrail-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。

在 VS Code 中打开

或者自己复制设置

粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json

{
  "servers": {
    "agent-guardrail": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "guardrail-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。

这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。

你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。

这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。

它能做什么

它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。

基础检查i

我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月7日

  • ✓ 通过

    作者与仓库一致

    注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 rudimentall1 验证,该账户拥有此仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    仍在维护

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • … 尚未检查

    有许可证

    我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库

  • – 不适用

    端点有响应

    它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点

  • – 不适用

    使用 OAuth 登录

    在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置

  • … 尚未检查

    工具描述中没有隐藏指令

    它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表

与“网络安全”中的其他服务器比较i

  • 星标数多于此分类中其他 994 个服务器的 0%
  • 发布到注册中心的时间比此分类中其他 994 个服务器的 33% 更新
  • 基础检查结果等于或优于此分类中其他 994 个服务器的 100%

与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。

常见问题

Agent Guardrail 安全吗?

它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。

它需要哪些密钥或代码?

注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。

它在我的电脑上运行还是在云端?

它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。

它还在维护吗?

GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(1.0.2)于3个月前进入注册中心。

哪些应用可以使用它?

支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Python (uv)。

有什么可以替代它?

同一分类中有:SML Risk Firewall, ipdata MCP by usefulapi, MaxMind minFraud MCP by usefulapi

替代选择

同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。

如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i

SML Risk Firewall

作者:scriptmasterlabs.com

Pre-trade risk checks for agent trades: orders vs your limits, signed receipts.

在云端运行今天更新
安装

Look up location, network, company and threat data for IP addresses and ASNs in ipdata.

在云端运行今天更新
安装

作者的 README

打开 README

按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。

Guardrail

📄 Read the white paper

Put a policy firewall between an AI agent and every irreversible action.

Your agent wants to run a shell command, send an email, or move money. Guardrail checks that request against rules you wrote, before it happens, and either lets it through, asks a human, or blocks it — with a plain- English reason every time.

60-second quickstart

git clone <this repo> && cd agent-guardrail

pip install -r requirements.txt

python3 cli.py check --agent trading-agent-001 --tool wallet.transfer \ --args '{"amount": 9999, "to": "0xabc"}'

Or pip install guardrail-mcp gives you a guardrail command directly — same output, no repo checkout required (falls back to the policy bundled in the package if you don't point --policy at your own file):

guardrail check --agent trading-agent-001 --tool wallet.transfer \

--args '{"amount": 9999, "to": "0xabc"}'

{

"decision": "BLOCK", "matched_rules": [ {"rule": "numeric_cap_exceeded", "severity": "BLOCK", "message": "amount=9999.0 exceeds cap 5 for 'wallet.transfer' (unknown agent)"} ] }

That's it — no server, no account, no API key. policies/default.yaml is the file that decided this; open it and change the numbers to match your own rules.


Why this, not another "AI risk scoring" tool

Most "AI agent security" projects (including an earlier project of mine) lean on statistical risk scores computed from data nobody can actually verify at build time — wallet age, "reputation," contract "risk" — which either requires paid data feeds you don't have yet, or quietly becomes mock data pretending to be real. Fine for prototyping, dishonest to ship.

Guardrail only makes claims it can back up. Every check is a deterministic rule — a blocklist entry, a regex match, a numeric cap, a rate limit — evaluated against a policy file you write and can audit yourself, backed by a real, persistent audit log (SQLite) you can query. Nothing here pretends to know something it doesn't.

It's also not blockchain-specific. Shell execution, email, HTTP requests, file deletion, database writes, crypto transactions — same engine, same policy file, same rules.


Four ways to use it

1. CLI — for testing a policy by hand

Shown above. No setup, instant feedback while you write rules.

2. MCP server (mcp_server.py) — the easy on-ramp, advisory

Exposes guardrail_check, guardrail_record_outcome, and guardrail_agent_history as MCP tools any MCP-compatible agent (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, custom MCP clients) can call.

{

"mcpServers": { "guardrail": { "command": "python3", "args": ["/absolute/path/to/agent-guardrail/mcp_server.py"], "env": { "GUARDRAIL_POLICY": "/absolute/path/to/agent-guardrail/policies/default.yaml" } } } }

Then tell your agent (in its system prompt) to always call guardrail_check before spending money, deleting data, messaging someone externally, or running code.

Be clear-eyed about its limit: like any MCP tool, nothing stops the calling model from just not invoking it. This only helps if the agent is instructed to always check first — for a guarantee it can't skip, see #3.

3. guardrail.decorator.enforce — the real guarantee

Wraps the actual Python function that performs a tool's side effect. The check runs in your code, before that function executes — the model never gets a chance to call the real function directly.

from guardrail.decorator import enforce, BlockedActionError

@enforce(engine, tool_name="send_email") def send_email(agent_id: str, to: str, subject: str, body: str): ... # only runs if the decision is ALLOW, or WARN-and-confirmed

Use this if you're building your own agent loop (LangChain, CrewAI, a custom MCP host, a Slack bot with tool access). Run python3 examples/example_agent_usage.py to see it block a real function call.

4. guardrail.mcp_enforced_server.EnforcedGuardrailMCPServer — the real guarantee, over MCP

The MCP server in #2 above is honest about being advisory: the model gets a guardrail_check tool, but nothing stops it from calling the *actual* tool (exposed by some other MCP server, or by the model's own direct access) without checking first, or checking one thing and doing another. If the model talks to your infrastructure only over MCP - no Python decorator possible - this is the same #3 guarantee for that case: the operator registers real action executors (the code that holds real credentials and performs the real side effect) as the *only* way the model can invoke that action at all.

from guardrail.mcp_enforced_server import EnforcedGuardrailMCPServer

def do_transfer(request): wallet = get_wallet_for(request.agent_id) # real credentials, held here - never exposed to the model tx_hash = wallet.transfer(to=request.arguments["to"], amount=request.arguments["amount"]) return {"tx_hash": tx_hash}

server = EnforcedGuardrailMCPServer(policy_path="policies/default.yaml") server.register_action( "wallet.transfer", "Transfer funds from the agent's wallet.", input_schema={"type": "object", "properties": {"to": {"type": "string"}, "amount": {"type": "number"}}, "required": ["to", "amount"]}, executor=do_transfer, ) server.serve_stdio()

The model is given exactly one MCP tool named wallet.transfer - there is no separate, unguarded way to move funds through this server. A BLOCK decision means do_transfer never runs. Both this and enforce() share one implementation of "check, maybe route WARN to a human, run only if not blocked, report the real outcome back" (guardrail/enforcement.py) - not two independently-maintained copies of the same guarantee.


Getting a human to actually confirm a WARN

on_warn is the hook — Guardrail ships two ready-made implementations:

Local web UI (guardrail/confirmation/web_ui.py) — a tiny built-in server (stdlib only, no Flask) with Approve/Reject buttons. The wrapped function blocks until someone clicks one, or times out (fails closed — timeout means reject, not "allow by default").

from guardrail.confirmation.web_ui import ConfirmationServer

confirmation = ConfirmationServer(port=8787, timeout_seconds=300) confirmation.start(open_browser=True)

@enforce(engine, tool_name="wallet.transfer", on_warn=confirmation.request_confirmation) def transfer(...): ...

Try it live: python3 examples/example_web_confirmation.py, then open http://localhost:8787.

Terminal prompt (guardrail/confirmation/cli_ui.py) — for scripts and local testing where a browser is overkill:

from guardrail.confirmation.cli_ui import cli_confirm

@enforce(engine, tool_name="wallet.transfer", on_warn=cli_confirm) def transfer(...): ...

Neither is required — on_warn is just a function (decision) -> bool, so a Slack message, a ticket, or anything else you already use works too.


Writing a policy

Policies are plain YAML — see policies/default.yaml for a real, working starting point (11 confirmation-gated tools, 10 destructive-pattern checks, numeric caps, domain rules, rate limits, all commented).

Rule typeWhat it checks
blocked_toolsTool names that are never allowed
confirmation_required_toolsTool names that always produce WARN
argument_patternsRegex against the JSON-serialized call arguments — destructive shell commands, SQL, leaked credentials, path traversal, SSRF, force-pushes, regardless of which tool carries them
numeric_capsPer-tool numeric field caps, tighter for agents with no history
aggregate_capsA cap shared across *several* tools, tracked as one running total per agent — see below
domain_rulesAllow/deny lists on a URL or email-recipient field, per tool
rate_limitsSliding-window call limits per (agent, tool), backed by SQLite

numeric_caps limits each tool independently — wallet.transfer capped at 1000/day and wallet.approve capped at 1000/day separately means an agent using both can still move 2000/day combined. aggregate_caps closes that: every tool listed in the same group draws from one shared running total, e.g.

aggregate_caps:

daily_money_movement: tools: wallet.transfer: amount wallet.approve: amount window_seconds: 86400 max_unknown_agent: 5 max_known_agent: 1000

Only *confirmed* spend counts toward the total: a BLOCKed request never adds anything, and a request that's provisionally recorded (because its own check passed) is refunded if the real action later turns out not to have succeeded — engine.record_outcome(request_id, "error"), called automatically by both enforce() and the enforced MCP server (they share one implementation of this, guardrail/enforcement.py) when the real executor raises, or when a WARN a human rejects results in a BlockedActionError. Real enforcement of this therefore has the same caveat as everything else that depends on record_outcome being called: it works fully under enforce() and the enforced MCP server (see below); under the *advisory-only* MCP server (#2 above), a provisionally-recorded amount just stays recorded, since nothing ever reports back whether the action actually happened. See guardrail/storage/aggregate_spend.py's module docstring for the full picture.

No code changes needed to adjust any of this — edit the YAML, restart the process (or the MCP server).


Running the tests

pip install -r requirements.txt

PYTHONPATH=. python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v

134 tests: rule evaluation, the full engine pipeline (real SQLite-backed rate limiting, aggregate spend tracking, and audit persistence), the enforce decorator and the enforced MCP server (both proving a BLOCK genuinely prevents the real action from running, sharing one implementation of that guarantee), the advisory MCP server's JSON-RPC handling, the confirmation web UI over real HTTP requests against a live server, and a dedicated suite that checks the *shipped* policies/default.yaml — not just synthetic test policies — actually catches what it claims to.


What's honestly still missing

  • Single-process SQLite by default. Fine for one agent process; for multiple replicas sharing rate limits/audit history, point every process at the same file on shared storage, or swap in a real database (the storage classes are small and easy to re-target).
  • Secrets/PII redaction in the audit log is on by default. AuditLog redacts values whose key looks sensitive (password, api_key, authorization, ...) and a couple of high-confidence value shapes (PEM private key blocks, JWT-shaped strings) regardless of key name, recursing into nested dicts/lists - see guardrail/storage/redaction.py for exactly what is and isn't caught, and why general-purpose entropy heuristics were deliberately left out (too many false positives on ordinary UUIDs/hashes). Pass AuditLog(redact=False) to store arguments as-submitted, or extra_sensitive_keys={...} to redact additional field names specific to your tools.
  • The default policy is a reasonable starting point, not a complete threat model. It catches well-known destructive shell/SQL patterns and obvious credential formats — extend argument_patterns for whatever your agents actually touch.
  • The confirmation web UI has no auth. It binds to 127.0.0.1 by design (not exposed on the network), but anyone with local access to that port can approve/reject. Fine for a single developer's machine; put it behind your own auth if multiple people share the host.

None of these are m

只显示了开头部分;其余内容请在仓库中阅读

问 PopNx