Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to BugSecure MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables authorized bug bounty automation via a scope-enforced MCP bridge, supporting web, secrets, mobile, and LLM red-team scanning, with reporting and advisory.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables automated bug bounty hunting and security research with tools for reconnaissance, web vulnerability scanning, API testing, binary analysis, and mobile app analysis through an MCP interface.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server for authorized bug bounty work that enforces an evidence-driven workflow with session management, preflight checks, surface discovery, and verified scanning.
      12
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables authorized pentest and bug bounty workflows from any MCP client, with scoped recon, per-host rate limits, and scanner output turned into deduplicated, triaged finding cards.
      9
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Wraps multiple bug bounty platform APIs (HackerOne, Bugcrowd, etc.) behind a uniform MCP tool surface, enabling LLM agents to query programs, scope, and briefs across platforms through a single interface.
      -
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server providing direct tool-access to security-testing primitives for bug bounty hunting, including recon, request replay, IDOR/BOLA fuzzing, vulnerability detection, secrets scanning, and persistent hunt memory with confidence-scored findings.
      38
      -

    TDQS

    A3.9/5.0

    Scored across 33 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    The tool set has significant overlap between get_program_stats, get_org_report_stats, and list_org_reports, and between list_org_certificates and list_my_certificates, which could cause agents to misselect. Tools like get_report and get_org_report have clear role separation, but the two stats tools and two search tools (search and search_programs) add confusion.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    The naming follows a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_program, list_org_reports, grade_report), which is consistent. However, there are exceptions like 'search' (verb only) and 'check_duplicates' (verb without noun), and some tools like 'save_disclosure_draft' have a different verb order. Still, most names are readable and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 27 tools, the count is slightly over the ideal range but still manageable for a comprehensive bug bounty platform covering both researcher and organisation sides. Each tool serves a specific function, though some could be merged (e.g., stats tools). The count is high but not extreme.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers core lifecycle (submit_report, update_report_status, grade_report, appeal) and read operations, but lacks researcher-side actions like editing or withdrawing reports (cannot be done anyway). Organisation side lacks tools for managing programmes or settings (must go to website), which is a notable gap for a supposedly AI-assisted triage.

    Maintenance

    ActivityNo data
    ResponsivenessNo issues