Garak-MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to Garak-MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP 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.1GPL 3.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for ai-scanner that enables AI agents to scan codebases for LLM usage, AI frameworks, and exposed secrets.38 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Dockerized Kali Linux MCP server that enables LLMs to perform network security scans, penetration testing, and reconnaissance using tools like Nmap, Nikto, Hydra, and SQLMap.6 npm-
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMISP (Malware Information Sharing Platform) MCP server with built-in prompt injection defense via prompt-defense-audit82MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for offensive-security tooling, enabling AI agents to run reconnaissance, CVE intelligence, JavaScript analysis, HTTP probing, and port scanning against authorized targets.10MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP 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.151MIT
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.