Skip to main content
Glama
mychaelconnolly

phishfort-mcp

Related Servers

Alternatives to phishfort-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Exposes 79 cybersecurity skills and 12 orchestrator agents over MCP, with a typed 11-field output contract, an enforced resolvable-evidence gate (no verdict without a resolvable source), and human-approval gating for every mutating action. Apache-2.0, stdlib-only.
      8
      4
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Python-based MCP server that enables integration with Microsoft Security Copilot and Microsoft Sentinel, allowing users to run KQL queries, manage skillsets/plugins, and execute prompts in Security Copilot.
      23
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides MCP tools to query the phishunt.io phishing feed, enabling domain checks, brand-specific phishing lists, delta syncs, and phishing-signal analysis.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes a 60+ tool security and threat-intel stack to AI agents, enabling secret scanning, Sigma rule generation, ransomware lookup, OSINT, and deep research.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for the Forcepoint DLP 9.0 REST API. Enables incident management, policy management, and authentication via natural language, with multi-user support and persistent storage in Postgres and Vault.
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Provides an educational MCP server with cybersecurity examples, exposing a threat-intel lookup tool, an asset inventory resource, and an investigation prompt using simulated data.
      -

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 23 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: incident listing vs. finding by subject, document metadata vs. signed URL, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; descriptions clearly differentiate them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent 'phishfort_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, e.g., 'list_incidents', 'create_webhook', 'verify_webhook_signature'. No mixing of conventions.

    Tool Count4/5

    23 tools is on the higher side but still reasonable for a platform covering incidents, documents, users, clients, webhooks, and system info. Each tool has a clear purpose, so the count feels justified rather than excessive.

    Completeness3/5

    Core incident lifecycle is covered (list, get, report, request action, add attachments/comments), but missing direct update or delete incident operations. Webhook CRUD is complete. Overall, notable gaps exist but the main workflows are functional.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues