Skip to main content
Glama
ElonJask

ProxyPin MCP Server

by ElonJask

Related Servers

Alternatives to ProxyPin MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Exposes 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.
      17
      40 PyPI
      238
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables 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 npm
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for REST API reverse engineering from HTTP traffic captures, wrapping mitmproxy for live capture and mitmproxy2swagger for spec derivation.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A 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.
      7
      8
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      HTTP 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.
      1
      GPL 3.0

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count5/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessSyncing