Skip to main content
Glama
dcianciulli

DefectDojo MCP Server

by dcianciulli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to DefectDojo MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-defectdojo

      inspicere
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for DefectDojo vulnerability management, exposing 24 tools for managing products, engagements, tests, findings, scan imports, and finding lifecycle through the Model Context Protocol.
      24
      MIT

    • DefectDojo MCP Server

      jamiesonio
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Provides a Model Context Protocol server implementation that allows AI agents and other MCP clients to programmatically interact with DefectDojo, a vulnerability management tool, for managing findings, products, and engagements.
      11
      15
      MIT

    • va-pentest-mcp

      banhongit7
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      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.
      -

    • MCP Vulnerability Checker

      firetix
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server providing security vulnerability intelligence tools including CVE lookup, EPSS scoring, CVSS calculation, exploit detection, and Python package vulnerability checking.
      8
      9
      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

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 78 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Most tools are clearly distinct by resource and action (e.g., list_products vs get_product). However, the closure tools are heavily overlapping: close_finding, close_finding_false_positive, close_finding_mitigated, and close_finding_duplicate all serve the same core purpose with different levels of abstraction. Similarly, accept_risk, accept_risks_vulnerability, and create_risk_acceptance overlap, requiring agents to choose carefully.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (list_products, create_product, delete_product). Some deviations exist, such as import_scan and reimport_scan (no noun), and tools like get_current_user follow the pattern. The heavy use of 'finding' variations (add_finding_metadata, close_finding_duplicate) is predictable but occasionally verbose.

    Tool Count2/5

    With 78 tools, the server is far beyond the recommended 3-15 range for a single MCP server. This is an extreme mismatch that makes it difficult for an agent to navigate and increases the risk of misselection. While the domain (DefectDojo) is complex, the count is excessive and could be split into multiple focused servers.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers the core domain comprehensively: products, engagements, tests, findings, users, risk acceptances, and JIRA integrations. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to list all available scan types (list_test_types exists but may not cover external scanners), and some bulk operations are missing (e.g., bulk update findings). However, most CRUD operations are present.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources