A
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceA vulnerable MCP server implementation that demonstrates how poor coding practices can lead to security issues like Remote Code Execution, designed for educational purposes to add numbers.
1
2
MIT
ThreatByte-MCP
by anotherik
Related Servers
Alternatives to ThreatByte-MCP
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables hands-on exploration of common MCP security vulnerabilities through locally runnable vulnerable and fixed servers with accompanying exploits and a dashboard.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables interacting with a deliberately vulnerable API through MCP tools, allowing security testing and education by exercising vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, mass assignment, and broken access control.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceProvides an educational MCP server with cybersecurity examples, exposing a threat-intel lookup tool, an asset inventory resource, and an investigation prompt using simulated data.-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA self-hostable, vulnerable-by-design MCP server for learning how object-level authorization bugs (BOLA/IDOR) appear in multi-tenant tools.18MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceAn intentionally vulnerable MCP server for security training, simulating a fictional company with 28 vulnerable tools and 38 challenges to learn AI agent attack and defense.28MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA deliberately insecure MCP server designed as a pentest lab to demonstrate common vulnerabilities in MCP deployments.-
TDQS
B3/5.0
Scored across 22 tools
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear separation between cases, files, notes, indicators, and tools. However, cases.list and cases.list_all could cause confusion as their descriptions are similar, with list_all implying broader access but lacking clarity on how it differs from list with optional owner_id.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern using dot notation for grouping (e.g., cases.create, files.list) and verb_noun structure within groups. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style.
Tool Count4/5
With 22 tools, the count is on the higher side but reasonable for a security case management domain, covering multiple resource types like cases, files, notes, indicators, and tools. It might feel slightly heavy but each tool appears to serve a specific purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle coverage for cases, files, and notes, along with search capabilities for indicators and tool management. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full workflows from case creation to resolution with file handling and note-taking.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues