Skip to main content
Glama
gokulapap

BugBounty MCP Server

by gokulapap

Related Servers

Alternatives to BugBounty MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to conduct authorized pentests and bug-bounty workflows with scope enforcement, audit logging, reconnaissance, safe vulnerability checks, payload/wordlist generation, and professional report generation.
      14
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to orchestrate 25+ security tools for penetration testing through natural language, automating scans, vulnerability detection, and report generation.
      31
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      AI-powered cybersecurity automation platform with 150+ security tools and 12+ autonomous AI agents for penetration testing, vulnerability assessment, and bug bounty hunting. Enables comprehensive security testing through intelligent tool selection and automated workflows.
      3
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI assistants to perform authorized security testing and penetration testing operations including SSL/TLS analysis, port scanning, vulnerability scanning, and HTTP security header audits through natural language interactions.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Integrates 7 security tools (nmap, nuclei, dirsearch, sqlmap, hydra, Acunetix, Metasploit) via MCP protocol for AI-assisted penetration testing with enterprise-grade safety features.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to generate and manage specialized bug bounty hunting workflows including reconnaissance, vulnerability testing, OSINT gathering, and file upload testing. Provides REST API endpoints for comprehensive security assessments with intelligence-driven vulnerability prioritization.
      40
      2
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 53 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools target a clearly distinct security check, and descriptions carefully separate actions like http_probe vs batch_http_probe or csp_analysis vs headers_analysis. However, several clusters overlap in purpose—subdomain_enumeration/subfinder/amass/assetfinder all discover subdomains, while web_directory_scan/sensitive_file_exposure_scan/web_metadata_discovery/openapi_discovery all probe paths—so some misselection is possible.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools use snake_case with descriptive, domain-specific names, and CRUD tools follow a verb_noun pattern. Suffix conventions vary (_analysis, _scan, _discovery, _enumeration, _probe), but there is no casing or style mixing, so names remain predictable.

    Tool Count1/5

    53 tools far exceeds the practical 3–15 range and clearly passes the 50+ extreme threshold. While many tools are individually distinct security checks, the sheer number burdens tool selection and increases overlap in an agent-facing MCP server.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers scope validation, broad reconnaissance (DNS, subdomains, ports, web paths), specialized analyses, external scanners, and a finding/reporting lifecycle. Minor gaps include no delete_finding and no manual HTTP request, fuzzing, or exploitation tool, but core bug-bounty workflows are well supported.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessUnresponsive