Threat Modeling MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Threat Modeling MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI-powered threat modeling with tools for creating threat models, analyzing security threats, generating security controls, and validating architecture against best practices.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables developers and product owners to scan a codebase and extract a readable business overview—features, roles, access control, data model, and endpoints—along with findings on missing or inconsistent rules, and generate shareable HTML or Markdown reports and diagrams.92MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceTurns a description of an AI or agentic system's architecture into ranked adversary techniques, coverage-ordered mitigations with assigned owners and components, compounding risks, and real-world incidents of similar shape. Also provides reference lookup and cross-mappings to ATT&CK, STRIDE, OWASP Top 10 for LLM, and NIST AI RMF, entirely offline.Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables read-only, evidence-led security audits of GitHub-hosted source code through explicit workflow primitives: repository reconnaissance, coverage-ledger planning, heuristic candidate leads, structured findings validation, independent verification gates, and JSON/Markdown report generation. It never clones, executes, or probes the target code, and marks runs incomplete until coverage and reviewer-verification gates pass.14AGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAutomates 85-95% of the Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDLC) planning phase through multi-role AI orchestration, enabling business analysis, threat modeling, test strategy design, and security code review.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI-powered security scanning of codebases through conversational analysis, allowing users to assess, threat model, code review, DAST test, and generate security reports using natural language with Claude.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 11 tools
Each tool targets a distinct threat-modeling domain or lifecycle action: assumptions, workflow orchestration, system context, architecture, actors, trust boundaries, asset flows, threats/mitigations, code validation, data-model inspection, and export. The manage_* tools share a verb but have clearly separate nouns and descriptions, so an agent should not confuse them.
All tool names use snake_case and a consistent verb_noun pattern: manage_*, inspect_data_models, and export_threat_model. The repetition of manage_* is predictable rather than confusing.
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a threat-modeling workflow. The count reflects distinct lifecycle phases and entities without obvious redundancy or missing operations.
The surface covers the full threat-modeling lifecycle: assumptions, workflow, business context, architecture, actors, trust boundaries, asset flows, threats and mitigations, code validation, data-model inspection, and export. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated domain.