Head to head
Healthclaw Guardrails vs Pubmed
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
Guardrailed FHIR access for AI agents: PHI redaction, audit trail, step-up auth, tenant isolation
Full listing
No reviews yet
PubMed MCP — wraps the NCBI E-utilities API (biomedical literature, free, no auth)
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. Both score close on the safety scan (87 and 87 out of 100).
| Healthclaw Guardrails | Pubmed | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A87/100 | A87/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 30 | 1 |
| Downloads / week | – | – |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | Yes |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-25 | 2026-09-25 |
| Category | Security | Security |