| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 9 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Scans agentic workflows (agent definitions, tool integrations, LLM chains) for security vulnerabilities by parsing workflow configurations and analyzing tool-use patterns. Uses static analysis to detect unsafe function calls, unvalidated tool inputs, privilege escalation risks, and insecure API integrations without requiring runtime execution. Operates as a CLI that ingests workflow definitions (YAML, JSON, or Python agent code) and outputs a structured vulnerability report with severity levels and remediation guidance.
Unique: Purpose-built for agentic workflows specifically — analyzes tool-use patterns, function-calling schemas, and agent-to-API integration risks rather than generic code security. Understands agent-specific threat models like prompt injection through tool outputs, unauthorized tool chaining, and capability escalation through multi-step agent reasoning.
vs alternatives: Specialized for LLM agent security scanning vs general-purpose SAST tools (Semgrep, Snyk) which lack agentic-specific vulnerability patterns and tool-use risk modeling
Parses and validates tool schemas (OpenAPI, JSON Schema, function signatures) declared in agent configurations to detect unsafe parameter types, missing input validation, and overly permissive function signatures. Analyzes tool definitions against security patterns (e.g., detects if a tool accepts arbitrary shell commands, file paths without sanitization, or database queries without parameterization). Builds a tool dependency graph to identify chains of tools that could be exploited sequentially.
Unique: Builds tool dependency graphs specific to agentic workflows to detect multi-step exploitation chains — understands that a safe tool becomes dangerous when called after another tool that produces attacker-controlled output. Includes agentic-specific risk patterns like 'tool output injection' and 'capability escalation through tool chaining'.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than generic schema validators (Ajv, JSON Schema validators) because it understands agent-specific threat models and tool interaction patterns rather than just structural validation
Scans agent prompts and system messages for patterns that could enable prompt injection attacks, such as unvalidated user input being concatenated directly into prompts, missing delimiters between user and system content, or insufficient guardrails against instruction override. Uses pattern matching and semantic analysis to detect where user-controlled data flows into LLM inputs without sanitization. Identifies risky prompt construction patterns like f-strings with untrusted variables or template injection vulnerabilities.
Unique: Specifically targets agentic prompt injection patterns — understands that agents are vulnerable not just through direct user input but through tool outputs that get fed back into prompts. Detects injection vectors specific to multi-turn agent reasoning where earlier tool outputs can influence later prompt execution.
vs alternatives: More specialized than generic code injection detectors because it understands LLM-specific injection patterns and the unique threat model of agentic systems where tool outputs become prompt inputs
Analyzes the declared capabilities of an agent (tools, APIs, permissions, resource access) to assess the overall risk profile and potential for misuse. Evaluates what an agent could theoretically do if compromised or manipulated, including access to sensitive data stores, ability to modify systems, network access, and credential usage. Produces a capability matrix showing which resources the agent can access and flags high-risk capability combinations (e.g., database write access + email sending = potential data exfiltration).
Unique: Understands agentic-specific risk models where the threat is not just individual tool misuse but the combination of tools and the agent's reasoning capability to chain them together. Detects capability combinations that are individually safe but dangerous when combined (e.g., read database + write file + network access = data exfiltration).
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than static permission checkers because it models agent-specific threat scenarios (reasoning-based capability chaining) rather than just checking individual permission grants
Integrates with CI/CD systems (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins) to automatically scan agent code on commits and pull requests, blocking merges if security vulnerabilities exceed configured thresholds. Provides exit codes and structured output (JSON, SARIF) for CI/CD consumption. Supports policy-as-code to define organization-specific security rules (e.g., 'no agent can access production databases', 'all tools must have input validation'). Generates reports and metrics for security dashboards.
Unique: Purpose-built for agentic workflows in CI/CD — understands that agent security scanning needs to happen at code review time before deployment, not just at runtime. Integrates with version control workflows to provide feedback on agent changes before merge.
vs alternatives: More integrated than running generic security scanners in CI/CD because it understands agentic-specific policies and can enforce agent-specific security gates (e.g., 'no agent can have write access to production database')
Analyzes security implications of multi-agent systems where multiple agents interact, delegate tasks, or share resources. Detects inter-agent communication vulnerabilities, privilege escalation through agent-to-agent delegation, resource contention issues, and unauthorized information flow between agents. Models agent interaction patterns to identify scenarios where one agent could be compromised to attack another or where agents could collude to bypass security controls.
Unique: Specifically models multi-agent threat scenarios where the attack vector is agent-to-agent rather than external. Understands agent delegation patterns and can detect privilege escalation through task delegation chains, which is unique to agentic systems.
vs alternatives: Addresses a threat model that generic security tools don't cover — agent-to-agent attacks and privilege escalation through delegation, which is specific to multi-agent systems
Executes SQL queries against Supabase PostgreSQL instances through the Model Context Protocol, translating natural language or structured query requests into parameterized SQL statements. Uses MCP's tool-calling interface to expose database operations as callable functions with schema validation, enabling LLM agents to perform CRUD operations, joins, and aggregations with automatic connection pooling and credential management through Supabase client SDK.
Unique: Exposes Supabase PostgreSQL as MCP tools with automatic credential injection from Supabase client SDK, eliminating manual connection string management and enabling seamless LLM-to-database queries within Claude or compatible agents
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than generic SQL MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in authentication and connection pooling rather than requiring separate database credential configuration
Exposes Supabase Auth session state and user metadata through MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect current authentication context, retrieve user profiles, and trigger auth-related operations. Integrates with Supabase's JWT-based auth system to validate sessions and access user claims without re-authenticating, using the Supabase client's built-in session management.
Unique: Integrates Supabase's JWT-based auth system directly into MCP tool interface, allowing agents to inspect and act on auth state without managing separate credential stores or re-authentication flows
vs alternatives: More seamless than generic auth MCP servers because it leverages Supabase's built-in session management and avoids redundant credential passing between agent and auth system
Invokes Supabase Edge Functions (serverless TypeScript/JavaScript functions) through MCP tools, passing parameters and receiving results with optional streaming support. Uses Supabase's edge function HTTP API to trigger functions with automatic authentication headers and response parsing, enabling agents to execute custom business logic without embedding it in the agent itself.
Supabase scores higher at 42/100 vs Agentic Radar at 20/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Edge Functions as MCP tools with automatic authentication and response parsing, allowing agents to invoke custom serverless logic without managing HTTP clients or credential injection
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic HTTP MCP tools because it handles Supabase-specific authentication, error handling, and response formatting automatically
Subscribes to real-time changes on Supabase tables through MCP's event streaming interface, using Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY mechanism to push INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE events to agents. Maintains persistent WebSocket connections and filters events by table and row-level policies, enabling agents to react to database changes without polling.
Unique: Bridges Supabase's PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY real-time system with MCP's tool interface, enabling agents to subscribe to database changes without managing WebSocket connections or event serialization
vs alternatives: More efficient than polling-based approaches because it uses Supabase's native real-time infrastructure rather than repeated database queries
Manages files in Supabase Storage buckets through MCP tools, supporting upload, download, list, and delete operations with automatic authentication and path-based access control. Uses Supabase's S3-compatible storage API with built-in support for public/private buckets and signed URLs for temporary access, enabling agents to handle file I/O without managing cloud storage credentials.
Unique: Exposes Supabase Storage's S3-compatible API as MCP tools with automatic authentication and signed URL generation, eliminating the need for agents to manage cloud storage credentials or generate temporary access tokens
vs alternatives: More integrated than generic S3 MCP tools because it leverages Supabase's built-in bucket policies and authentication rather than requiring separate AWS credentials
Performs semantic similarity searches on vector embeddings stored in Supabase PostgreSQL using pgvector extension, translating natural language queries into embedding vectors and executing cosine/L2 distance searches. Integrates with embedding providers (OpenAI, Cohere) or uses pre-computed embeddings, enabling agents to retrieve semantically similar documents or records without full-text search limitations.
Unique: Integrates pgvector directly into MCP tools with automatic embedding generation and distance calculation, enabling agents to perform semantic search without managing separate vector database infrastructure
vs alternatives: More efficient than external vector databases (Pinecone, Weaviate) for Supabase users because it colocates embeddings with relational data, reducing network latency and simplifying data synchronization
Exposes Supabase database schema information through MCP tools, allowing agents to discover table structures, column types, constraints, and relationships without manual schema documentation. Queries PostgreSQL information_schema and Supabase metadata tables to dynamically generate schema descriptions, enabling agents to construct valid queries and understand data relationships.
Unique: Queries Supabase's PostgreSQL information_schema directly through MCP tools, enabling agents to dynamically discover and adapt to database schemas without pre-configured schema definitions
vs alternatives: More flexible than static schema definitions because it reflects live database state, including recent migrations or schema changes
Enforces Supabase Row-Level Security policies within agent queries, ensuring that agents can only access rows permitted by RLS rules defined in the database. Evaluates policies based on authenticated user context (JWT claims, user ID) and applies WHERE clause filters automatically, preventing unauthorized data access at the database layer rather than application layer.
Unique: Delegates authorization enforcement to PostgreSQL RLS policies rather than implementing authorization in agent code, ensuring that data access rules are centralized and cannot be bypassed by agent logic
vs alternatives: More secure than application-level authorization because RLS is enforced at the database layer, preventing accidental data leaks even if agent code has bugs
+1 more capabilities