Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Security Intel MCP

Security Intel MCP

by datakoot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Security Intel MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • CVESentry MCP

      johannschiffer
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI coding agents to run sub-millisecond, fully offline CVE lookups and audit dependency manifests such as requirements.txt and package.json against known vulnerable version ranges. It returns CVSS severity details and calculates the minimal safe upgrade version needed to eliminate matching vulnerabilities, without rate limits or API keys.
      4
      MIT
    • Fetter MCP

      Fetter MCPofficial

      fetter-io
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides real-time Python package vulnerability data, enabling AI agents to check CVEs, CVSS scores, and safe versions for informed dependency decisions.
      1
      -

    • Aegis MCP

      ajaybe-ops
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Connects AI agents to structured vulnerability intelligence from NVD, EPSS, KEV, and OSV, enabling deterministic, policy-scored incident triage, CVE lookup, vulnerability search, and package scanning through auditable MCP tools.
      6
      1
      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

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 5 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The five tools mostly target distinct resources: individual CVE lookup, KEV catalog queries, EPSS scoring, per-package OSV lookup, and manifest-wide auditing. However, cve_lookup already bundles KEV and EPSS results inline, so an agent may be unsure when to call the dedicated known_exploited or epss_score tools versus the composite lookup. The package_vulnerabilities vs audit_dependencies split is clear (single package vs whole manifest).

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Names are readable but follow mixed conventions: cve_lookup, known_exploited, epss_score, package_vulnerabilities, and audit_dependencies blend noun_noun, adjective-style, and verb_noun forms. Two tools (audit_dependencies, package_vulnerabilities) use verb-based action naming while others are noun phrases. Not chaotic, but no single predictable pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Five tools is a tight, well-scoped surface for a security-intelligence server covering CVE data, exploit likelihood, and dependency auditing. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or thinness. No unused or filler tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core workflows: CVE detail, known-exploited status, EPSS prioritization, package lookup, and full manifest auditing. Minor gaps exist, such as keyword/vendor-based CVE search or advisory text search, but agents can work around these via CVE IDs and OSV queries.

    Resources