Skip to main content
Glama
LT7T
by LT7T

PentestThinkingMCP

A systematic, AI-powered penetration testing reasoning engine (MCP server) for attack path planning, CTF/HTB solving, and automated pentest workflows. Features Beam Search, MCTS, attack step scoring, and tool recommendations.


What is PentestThinkingMCP?

PentestThinkingMCP is an advanced Model Context Protocol (MCP) server designed to empower both human and AI pentesters. It provides:

  • Automated attack path planning using Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)

  • Step-by-step reasoning for CTFs, Hack The Box (HTB), and real-world pentests

  • Attack step scoring and prioritization

  • Tool recommendations for each step (e.g., nmap, metasploit, linpeas)

  • Critical path highlighting for the most promising exploit chains

  • Tree-based reasoning for reporting and documentation


Related MCP server: PentestThinkingMCP

Why is it special?

  • Brings LLMs to the next level: Transforms a normal LLM into a structured, methodical pentest planner and advisor

  • Automates complex reasoning: Finds multi-stage attack chains, not just single exploits

  • Works for CTFs, HTB, and real-world pentests: Adapts to any scenario where stepwise attack logic is needed

  • Bridges the gap between AI and hacking: Makes AI a true partner in offensive security


Features

  • Dual search strategies for attack modeling:

    • Beam search with configurable width (for methodical exploit chain discovery)

    • MCTS for complex decision spaces (for dynamic attack scenarios with unknowns)

  • Evidence/Vulnerability scoring and evaluation

  • Tree-based attack path analysis

  • Statistical analysis of potential attack vectors

  • MCP protocol compliance


How does it work?

  1. Input:
    You (or your AI) provide the current attack step/state (e.g., "Enumerate SMB on 10.10.10.10").

  2. Reasoning:
    The server uses Beam Search or MCTS to explore possible next steps, scoring and prioritizing them.

  3. Output:
    Returns the next best attack step, the full attack chain, recommended tool, and highlights the critical path.


Example Workflow: Solving an HTB Machine

  1. Recon:
    Input: attackStep: "Start with initial recon on 10.10.10.10"
    Output: Run nmap -p- 10.10.10.10 (recommended tool: nmap)

  2. Enumeration:
    Input: attackStep: "Run nmap -p- 10.10.10.10"
    Output: Enumerate SMB on port 445 (recommended tool: enum4linux)

  3. Vulnerability Analysis:
    Input: attackStep: "Enumerate SMB on port 445"
    Output: Search for public SMB exploits (CVE-2017-0144) (recommended tool: searchsploit)

  4. Exploitation:
    Input: attackStep: "Search for public SMB exploits (CVE-2017-0144)"
    Output: Exploit SMB with EternalBlue (CVE-2017-0144) (recommended tool: metasploit)

  5. Privilege Escalation:
    Input: attackStep: "Got shell as user"
    Output: Run winPEAS for privilege escalation checks (recommended tool: winPEAS)

  6. Root/Flag:
    Input: attackStep: "Found user.txt, need root"
    Output: Check for AlwaysInstallElevated misconfiguration (recommended tool: manual investigation)


Installation

git clone https://github.com/ibrahimsaleem/PentestThinkingMCP.git
cd PentestThinkingMCP
npm install
npm run build

Usage

  • Add to your MCP client (Cursor, Claude Desktop, etc.) as a server:

    {
      "mcpServers": {
        "pentestthinkingMCP": {
          "command": "node",
          "args": ["path/to/pentestthinkingMCP/dist/index.js"]
        }
      }
    }
  • Interact with it by sending attack steps and receiving next-step recommendations, tool suggestions, and attack path trees.


Search Strategies for Pentesting

  • Maintains a fixed-width set of the most promising attack paths or vulnerability chains.

  • Optimal for step-by-step exploit development and known vulnerability pattern matching.

  • Best for: Enumerating attack vectors, methodical vulnerability chaining, logical exploit pathfinding.

Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)

  • Simulation-based exploration of the potential attack surface.

  • Balances exploration of novel attack vectors and exploitation of known weaknesses.

  • Best for: Complex network penetration tests, scenarios with uncertain outcomes, advanced persistent threat (APT) simulation.


Algorithm Details

  1. Attack Vector Selection

    • Beam Search: Evaluates and ranks multiple potential attack paths or exploit chains.

    • MCTS: Uses UCT for node selection (potential exploit steps) and random rollouts (simulating attack progression).

  2. Evidence/Vulnerability Scoring Based On:

    • Likelihood of exploitability

    • Potential impact (CIA triad)

    • CVSS scores or similar metrics

    • Strength of connection in an attack chain (e.g., vulnerability A enables exploit B)

  3. Process Management

    • Tree-based state tracking of attack progression

    • Statistical analysis of successful/failed simulated attack paths

    • Progress monitoring against pentest objectives


Use Cases

  • Automated vulnerability identification and chaining

  • Exploit pathfinding and optimization

  • Attack scenario simulation and "what-if" analysis

  • Red teaming strategy development and refinement

  • Assisting in manual pentesting by suggesting potential avenues

  • Decision tree exploration for complex attack vectors

  • Strategy optimization for achieving specific pentest goals (e.g., data exfiltration, privilege escalation)


License

MIT

Available Tools

1 tool
pentestthinkingMCPC

Advanced reasoning tool with multiple strategies including Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attackStepYesCurrent attack step or action in the penetration test
attackStepNumberYesCurrent step number in the attack chain
totalAttackStepsYesTotal expected steps in the attack chain
nextAttackStepNeededYesWhether another attack step is needed
strategyTypeNoAttack strategy to use (beam_search or mcts)

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions strategy types but doesn't describe what the tool returns, whether it's read-only or has side effects, how long it might take to execute, or what kind of reasoning output it produces. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with just one sentence, but it's front-loaded with the core concept. However, it could be more efficient by specifying what the tool actually produces rather than just describing it as a 'reasoning tool.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the reasoning is applied, or what value it provides in penetration testing. The agent would be left guessing about the tool's output format and practical application.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions strategy types but the schema already defines the enum values and their purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it's an 'Advanced reasoning tool with multiple strategies' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about what it actually does - it doesn't specify what the tool outputs or how it helps with penetration testing. It mentions strategy types but doesn't explain what the tool produces or how it aids decision-making.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context it's appropriate for. The description mentions strategy types but doesn't explain when to choose beam_search versus mcts or what problems this tool is designed to solve in penetration testing workflows.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct as it is the sole tool available.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency since there are no other tools to compare against. The naming follows a clear pattern as it stands alone.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool for a server named 'PentestThinkingMCP' suggests a thin or incomplete surface, as pentesting typically involves multiple operations like scanning, exploitation, and reporting. This feels too minimal for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

Inferring the domain as pentesting or security testing, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks essential operations such as vulnerability scanning, network reconnaissance, or report generation, which are core to pentesting workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An automated penetration testing framework that enables intelligent security assessments through reconnaissance, vulnerability scanning, and controlled exploitation. Features AI-driven workflow management with comprehensive reporting for authorized security testing.
    25
    27
    9
    7
    BSD 3-Clause
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables automated penetration testing workflow planning using Beam Search and Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithms to generate step-by-step attack paths, score vulnerabilities, and recommend tools for reconnaissance, exploitation, and privilege escalation tasks.
    38
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    AI-powered penetration testing framework that can operate as an MCP server, enabling automated security assessments through natural language commands.
    2
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LT7T/SecMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server