Skip to main content
Glama
brettbergin

Adversary MCP Server

by brettbergin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Adversary MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • secscan-mcp

      openjkai
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      MCP server for Cursor that scans codebases for security issues including hardcoded secrets, SAST, vulnerable dependencies, and IaC misconfigurations.
      7
      MIT

    • Laraguard MCP

      ecr17dev
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A security audit server for Laravel projects that performs static code analysis, dependency CVE checks, and configuration audits. It enables developers to detect vulnerabilities like SQL injection and XSS while providing active attack simulations directly within MCP-compatible IDEs.
      8
      2
      AGPL 3.0

    • Security Scan MCP Server

      chrischabot
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides CVE-driven security prompts for code review, enabling coding agents to get actionable security checks based on real vulnerabilities.
      MIT

    • Orcho MCP Server

      guardd
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides real-time security risk assessment for AI coding prompts, analyzing potential dangers, blast radius, and complexity before code execution in Cursor.
      1
      10 npm
      MIT
    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

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 7 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The three scanning tools (code, file, folder) target different input types, while status/version tools serve administrative functions and false positive tools handle annotation management. There is no functional overlap between tools.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a perfect 'adv_verb_noun' pattern with consistent snake_case throughout. The naming convention is highly predictable, making it easy for agents to understand tool purposes from their names alone.

    Tool Count5/5

    Seven tools is an excellent number for this security scanning domain. The set covers core scanning operations (code/file/folder), administrative functions (status/version), and annotation management (mark/unmark false positives) without being overwhelming or sparse.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the essential security scanning workflow well, including scanning different input types and managing false positives. A minor gap exists in result retrieval/management tools - there's no way to list, filter, or export findings beyond the scanning operations themselves, but agents can work around this limitation.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources