Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to Garak-MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for security-testing AI models, exposing garak vulnerability scanning and URL/MCP-endpoint scanning as callable tools. It lets agents probe LLM endpoints for jailbreaks, prompt injection, and data leakage, and classify URLs or screen remote MCP endpoints for prompt-injection payloads.
      1
      GPL 3.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MISP (Malware Information Sharing Platform) MCP server with built-in prompt injection defense via prompt-defense-audit
      8
      2
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for offensive-security tooling, enabling AI agents to run reconnaissance, CVE intelligence, JavaScript analysis, HTTP probing, and port scanning against authorized targets.
      10
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server that enables LLMs to operate Acunetix/Invicti web vulnerability scanners through 15 tools, covering authentication, target management, scanning, vulnerability retrieval, and reporting via GraphQL and REST APIs.
      15
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_report retrieves results, list_garak_probes lists attacks, list_models lists models by type, list_model_types lists types, and run_attack executes an attack. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_report, list_garak_probes, run_attack). The naming is uniform across all tools, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Garak MCP server focused on AI security testing. Each tool serves a specific role in the workflow, from setup (listing models/probes) to execution (run_attack) and review (get_report), without unnecessary redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the core AI security testing workflow: listing resources (models, probes, types), running attacks, and retrieving reports. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for configuring attack parameters or managing attack history, but agents can still perform essential tasks effectively.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues