Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to MCPFP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Provides AI agents with standardized security scanning capabilities for authorized assessments, including host detection, port scanning, service fingerprinting, web vulnerability scanning, CVE verification, and report generation, all with unified JSON output and strict compliance controls.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Passive security scanner that audits a running MCP server against the OWASP MCP Top 10 and grades it A-F. Read-only static analysis of the advertised tools, prompts and resources with console/JSON/SARIF output, and it also runs as an MCP server itself.
      60 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables autonomous AI agents and penetration testers to conduct authorized security audits with persistent cross-session memory, zero-trust secret scrubbing, dynamic OWASP/ASVS checklists, and hallucination-free exploit PoC generation from captured traffic.
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to run bounded security reconnaissance tools against a local OWASP Juice Shop target via MCP, including HTTP checks, header inspection, Nmap scanning, and web enumeration, without granting arbitrary shell access.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Professional security testing server with 50+ integrated tools for web application vulnerability scanning, reconnaissance, fuzzing, and API testing. Enables comprehensive bug bounty hunting workflows including subdomain enumeration, XSS/SQLi detection, and automated security assessments.
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 8 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct stage or concern: target setup, environment checks, network scanning, HTTP header analysis, TLS inspection, OWASP mapping, guidance, and reporting. Even the two analyze tools are clearly separated by layer, so no agent should confuse one tool for another.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: load_, check_, scan_, analyze_, assess_, get_, and write_. The verb clearly signals the action and the noun signals the target, making the naming predictable and easy to extend.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a reconnaissance and OWASP assessment workflow. Each tool has a clear responsibility and no tool feels redundant or extraneous.

    Completeness5/5

    The workflow is complete for the stated passive-assessment and pedagogical purpose: it covers target validation, environment readiness, network discovery, HTTP/TLS inspection, OWASP mapping, guidance, and report generation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues