Skip to main content
Glama
awslabs

Threat Modeling MCP Server

Official
by awslabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Threat Modeling MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • security-framework-mcp

      zer0-kr
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Unified MCP server integrating NIST and OWASP security frameworks with live vulnerability data, enabling security searches, compliance mapping, threat modeling, and checklist generation.
      41
      14
      MIT

    • AI Security Crew

      Srajangpt1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A lightweight MCP server for security reviews that injects security requirements before code generation, scans dependencies for CVEs, and verifies generated code without disrupting workflow.
      68
      MIT
    • Precogly MCP by precogly

      Precogly MCPofficial

      precogly
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      MCP server for Precogly threat modeling, enabling users to integrate threat modeling capabilities into AI assistants.
      1
      Apache 2.0

    • threat-model-mcp

      Sumanharapanahalli
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Serves any STRIDE threat model to MCP-capable LLMs, enabling natural language querying of threat registers and export to the Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool.
      MIT

    • va-pentest-mcp

      banhongit7
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server for automated security vulnerability assessment, combining OWASP Dependency-Check dependency scanning with custom code vulnerability detection, and generating detailed HTML and JSON reports.
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.4/5.0

    Scored across 107 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type (components, connections, data stores, threats, etc.) with clear CRUD patterns. However, several code-validation tools (validate_security_controls, validate_threat_remediation, validate_threat_model_against_code, execute_code_validation_step) have overlapping purposes and could confuse an agent.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming generally follows a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_component, list_threats, delete_flow), and batch modifiers are consistent. Deviations exist: some entity types lack a get_* counterpart (components, connections, data stores), and a mix of validate_*, execute_*, and get_* plan/guidance tools introduces minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count1/5

    With 107 tools, this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch. While the domain is broad, the sheer number is overwhelming and suggests the tool surface should be consolidated or broken into smaller servers.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the full threat modeling lifecycle: business context, architecture elements, trust boundaries, threat actors, assets, flows, threats, mitigations, code validation, and exports. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no get_component, get_connection, or get_data_store), but they are workable.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive

    Resources