Head to head
grim-mcp vs Healthclaw Guardrails
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Security audit for AI agents: code, deps, exposure, secrets, drift, SBOM, and IoC.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Guardrailed FHIR access for AI agents: PHI redaction, audit trail, step-up auth, tenant isolation
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Healthclaw Guardrails (87/100 against 62). Healthclaw Guardrails is hosted and callable through the gateway; grim-mcp runs on your own machine.
| grim-mcp | Healthclaw Guardrails | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | C62/100 | A87/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 1 | 30 |
| Downloads / week | 822 | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-19 | 2026-09-25 |
| Category | Security | Security |