Aribot MCPofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables security work such as threat modeling, scanning, compliance checks, and remediation through AI assistants using the Model Context Protocol.
MIT
Mipiti MCP Server
by Mipiti
Related Servers
Alternatives to Mipiti MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI agents to interact with the SCF Controls Platform for security compliance, including browsing controls, tracking implementation, managing evidence, assessing risks, and monitoring vendors via natural language.1891,611 npm2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI-powered threat modeling with tools for creating threat models, analyzing security threats, generating security controls, and validating architecture against best practices.-
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables LLM clients to access DevSecOps tooling such as CI/CD pipeline status, vulnerability triage, log search, and dependency scanning through MCP, turning AI copilots into security-aware engineering partners.6MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides AI coding agents with real-time access to compliance rules, scan results, and remediation guidance to enforce coding standards and security policies on generated code.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceExposes identity, tools, workflows, guardrails, and evaluation as MCP tools — so any AI agent can read and write your ecosystem programmatically.27 npmMIT
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Scored across 139 tools
Disambiguation3/5
While many tools have distinct purposes, the large set includes several with overlapping or hard-to-distinguish functions (e.g., get_verification_report vs get_sufficiency vs get_control_work_order; apply_certain_reconciliation_match vs reject_reconciliation_candidate vs unreject_reconciliation_candidate; multiple list_* variants). The descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar-sounding tools creates ambiguity, especially for an agent deciding between coverage, sufficiency, and work-order surfaces.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a clear verb_noun pattern (add_*, get_*, list_*, edit_*, delete_*, create_*, set_*, update_*). Minor deviations exist (e.g., 'reevaluate_threat_model_factors' vs 'recompute_verdicts' vs 'retry_verdicts'; 'submit_assertions' vs 'submit_functional_test_assertions'; 'check_control_gaps' vs 'check_functional_gaps'). Overall predictable, but some verbs are inconsistent in specificity.
Tool Count2/5
139 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a complex threat-modeling platform. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. The count is excessive and likely includes many rarely-used or overlapping operations that could be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers an impressively complete lifecycle: model generation/refinement, entity CRUD, controls/assertions/verification, compliance, composition, findings, risk, and functional conformance. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to unlink a system membership, no explicit tool to edit functional objectives, but these are edge cases). Overall, the domain coverage is strong, with few dead ends.
Maintenance
ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues