ProxyPin MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to ProxyPin MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceExposes local Reqable network capture traffic to MCP clients for real-time monitoring and analysis of HTTP requests. It enables developers to query, search, and generate code from captured traffic stored locally within a private SQLite database.1740 PyPI238MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI to analyze real-time HTTP(S) traffic captured by ProxyPin, with tools to browse, search, and inspect requests and responses, as well as access saved history sessions.7 npm4MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceCaptures browser network traffic, analyzes API patterns, and exposes analysis tools through an MCP server for AI-assisted workflows.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for REST API reverse engineering from HTTP traffic captures, wrapping mitmproxy for live capture and mitmproxy2swagger for spec derivation.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA local MCP server for retrieving and analyzing your browser history. Makes it easy for a client to identify patterns, analyze sessions, and create a comprehensive report.78MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceHTTP Inspector MCP Server enables sending arbitrary HTTP requests, viewing history via a web panel, and taking screenshots of the panel for AI penetration testing workflows.1GPL 3.0
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. analyze_api focuses on API structure analysis, generate_code on code generation, get_domains on domain listing, get_request on single request details, list_requests on recent requests, and search_requests on keyword-based search. The boundaries are well-defined and non-overlapping.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_api, generate_code, get_domains, get_request, list_requests, search_requests). The naming is uniform, predictable, and enhances readability across the toolset.
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a proxy capture and analysis server. Each tool serves a specific function in the workflow (e.g., listing, searching, analyzing, generating), and none appear redundant or unnecessary for the domain.
The toolset covers core workflows for proxy capture and analysis, including listing, searching, retrieving details, analyzing structure, and generating code. A minor gap might be the absence of tools for managing or filtering captures (e.g., delete_requests, filter_by_method), but agents can likely work around this with the existing search and list tools.