BugSecure MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to BugSecure MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables authorized bug bounty automation via a scope-enforced MCP bridge, supporting web, secrets, mobile, and LLM red-team scanning, with reporting and advisory.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables 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
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to carry out a compliant, non-destructive, auditable authorized security-testing workflow — project intake, scope reading, asset discovery, non-destructive verification, evidence collection, and report-draft generation with manual submission tracking — where every outbound action is gated by scope checks, one-time human confirmation tokens, rate limits, and append-only audit logging.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for authorized bug bounty work that enforces an evidence-driven workflow with session management, preflight checks, surface discovery, and verified scanning.12MIT
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceEnables 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.922 PyPI2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceWraps 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.-
TDQS
Scored across 33 tools
Several tool pairs overlap by naming and purpose, such as get_report vs get_org_report, list_my_reports vs list_org_reports, and add_report_comment vs add_triage_comment. The descriptions do clearly distinguish researcher-side, organisation-side, and opt-in scopes, but an agent skimming names could misselect without reading them carefully.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, add_, update_, assign_, verify_, etc.) with useful my/org/triage scope prefixes. Minor deviations like the bare search tool and compound names such as mark_notifications_read keep it from being perfect.
At 33 tools, the surface is heavy and includes many near-duplicate list/get variants for reports, certificates, profiles, programmes, and stats. The dual researcher/organisation scope explains some breadth, but the count exceeds a well-scoped set and raises misselection risk.
The set covers core researcher workflows (submit, read, comment, appeal, disclose, certificates, notifications, profile) and organisation triage workflows (read, grade, comment, assign, status, stats, certificates). Some operations are intentionally website-only, such as attachments, disclosure publishing/approval, programme creation, settlement claims, and organisation-side appeals, leaving minor but real gaps.