Skip to main content
Glama
ricauts

CyberMCP

by ricauts
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to CyberMCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • MCPwner

      nedlir
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Model Context Protocol server for security research automation, integrating multiple security testing tools into LLM-driven workflows for secret scanning, static analysis, and vulnerability discovery.
      55
      Apache 2.0

    • va-pentest-mcp

      banhongit7
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server for automated security vulnerability assessment, combining OWASP Dependency-Check dependency scanning with custom code vulnerability detection, and generating detailed HTML and JSON reports.
      -
    • MockLoop MCP Server by MockLoop

      MockLoop MCP Serverofficial

      MockLoop
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      A Model Context Protocol server that generates and runs mock API servers from API documentation like OpenAPI/Swagger specs, enabling developers and AI assistants to quickly spin up mock backends for development and testing.
      17
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    C2.1/5.0

    Scored across 14 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose focused on specific security testing or authentication functions, with no overlap between authentication methods (e.g., api_login, basic_auth, oauth2_auth) and vulnerability checks (e.g., sql_injection_check, xss_check, path_traversal_check). The tools are well-differentiated by their target areas, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern throughout, with most tools using clear descriptive names (e.g., sql_injection_check, security_headers_check). However, there are minor deviations like 'auth_bypass_check' versus 'jwt_vulnerability_check' where some use underscores more consistently than others, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 14 tools, the count is well-scoped for a cybersecurity testing server, covering a comprehensive range of authentication methods and common vulnerability checks. Each tool appears to earn its place by addressing a specific aspect of security assessment, avoiding both excessive bloat and insufficient coverage.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set provides strong coverage for security testing, including authentication (e.g., api_login, basic_auth, token_auth) and vulnerability checks (e.g., sql_injection_check, xss_check). Minor gaps might exist, such as lack of tools for specific advanced attacks or reporting features, but core workflows for authentication and basic security assessments are well-covered without dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources