Action-level governance for AI agents -- control what they DO, not what they SAY
Action-level governance for AI agents — control what they DO, not what they SAY. AI agents are getting tool access. They can run shell commands, make API calls, read files, spend money. But most "guardrails" only filter what agents say — not what they do. AutoGPT autonomously spent $10K+ on API calls in a single session ChaosGPT attempted to access military systems and recruit other AI agents Air…
Inferred from the transports this listing declares (stdio). A client not listed here hasn’t been ruled out — it just isn’t something Forge can confirm.
Verification confirms publisher identity (repo ownership), not code safety. The security scan covers known CVEs and suspicious install scripts.
Forge read 0 source files from the published package tarball and matched no MCP tool registrations. Extraction is pattern-based over shipped source: a server that builds its tool list at runtime, or that ships only bundled or minified code, registers nothing this can see. Treat it as “not detected”, not as “exposes none”.
Action-level governance for AI agents — control what they DO, not what they SAY. AI agents are getting tool access. They can run shell commands, make API calls, read files, spend money. But most "guardrails" only filter what agents say — not what they do. AutoGPT autonomously spent $10K+ on API calls in a single session ChaosGPT attempted to access military systems and recruit other AI agents Air Canada chatbot invented a refund policy that cost the airline $800+ You need action-level control.…
Forge's dependency resolver reads npm metadata only, so this PyPI package has no resolved tree. That is a gap in coverage, not a clean bill of health.