CyberMCPは、バックエンドAPIのセキュリティ脆弱性をテストするために設計されたモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーです。LLMがAPIの一般的なセキュリティ問題を特定するために使用できる、専用のツールとリソースのセットを提供します。
認証脆弱性テスト: JWTの脆弱性、認証バイパス、弱い認証メカニズムをチェックします
インジェクションテスト: SQLインジェクション、XSS、その他のインジェクション脆弱性をテストします
データ漏洩テスト：機密データの漏洩問題を特定する
レート制限テスト: レート制限バイパスと DDoS 脆弱性をテストします
セキュリティ ヘッダーのテスト: セキュリティ ヘッダーの不足や設定ミスがないか確認します
包括的なリソース: API セキュリティ テストのチェックリストとガイドにアクセスします
認証サポート: セキュアなエンドポイントをテストするための複数の認証方法
Related MCP server: MCPwner
CyberMCP/
├── src/
│ ├── tools/ # MCP tools for security testing
│ ├── resources/ # MCP resources (checklists, guides)
│ ├── transports/ # Custom transport implementations
│ ├── utils/ # Utility functions and auth management
│ └── index.ts # Main entry point
├── package.json # Dependencies and scripts
├── tsconfig.json # TypeScript configuration
└── README.md # This fileリポジトリをクローンします。
git clone https://github.com/your-username/CyberMCP.git
cd CyberMCP依存関係をインストールします:
npm installプロジェクトをビルドします。
npm run buildstdio トランスポート (デフォルト) または HTTP トランスポートのいずれかを使用してサーバーを実行できます。
stdio トランスポートの使用 (LLM プラットフォームとの統合用):
npm startHTTP トランスポートを使用する (ローカル開発およびテスト用):
TRANSPORT=http PORT=3000 npm startMCP サーバーは、モデル コンテキスト プロトコルをサポートする LLM プラットフォームを含む任意の MCP クライアントに接続できます。
CyberMCP は、セキュリティ保護された API をテストするためのいくつかの認証方法をサポートしています。
基本認証: ユーザー名とパスワードでHTTP基本認証を設定する
トークン認証: ベアラートークン、JWT、またはカスタムトークン形式を使用する
OAuth2認証: さまざまな許可タイプによる完全なOAuth2フローのサポート
カスタムAPIログイン: 任意のログインAPIエンドポイントに対して認証します
認証ツール:
basic_auth : ユーザー名/パスワードで認証する
token_auth : トークンベースの認証を設定する
oauth2_auth : OAuth2認証を実行する
api_login : カスタムAPIエンドポイントを使用してログイン
auth_status : 現在の認証ステータスを確認する
clear_auth : 現在の認証状態をクリアする
JWT脆弱性チェック: JWTトークンのセキュリティ問題を分析します
認証バイパスチェック: エンドポイントの認証バイパス脆弱性をテストします
SQLインジェクションチェック: SQLインジェクションの脆弱性のパラメータをテストします
XSSチェック：クロスサイトスクリプティングの脆弱性をテストします
機密データチェック: 漏洩した個人情報、資格情報、機密情報を識別します
パストラバーサルチェック: ディレクトリトラバーサルの脆弱性をテストします
セキュリティ ヘッダー チェック: セキュリティのベスト プラクティスに基づいて HTTP ヘッダーを分析します
cybersecurity://checklists/{category}からセキュリティ チェックリストにアクセスします。カテゴリは次のようになります。
authentication
injection
data_leakage
rate_limiting
general
詳細なテスト ガイドにguides://api-testing/{topic}からアクセスします。topic は次のようになります。
jwt-testing
auth-bypass
sql-injection
xss
rate-limiting
API のセキュリティ脆弱性を効果的にテストするには、次のものが必要です。
APIエンドポイント: テストするエンドポイントのURL
認証情報: 保護されたエンドポイントにアクセスするための資格情報またはトークン
パラメータ名: ユーザー入力を受け入れるパラメータの名前
テストデータ: パラメータの有効なサンプルデータ
期待される動作: 通常の応答はどのようになるか
認証フロー: 対象APIでの認証の仕組み
basic_auth:
username: "admin"
password: "secure_password"token_auth:
token: "eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9..."
token_type: "Bearer"
expires_in: 3600oauth2_auth:
client_id: "client_123"
client_secret: "secret_456"
token_url: "https://example.com/oauth/token"
grant_type: "client_credentials"
scope: "read write"api_login:
login_url: "https://example.com/api/login"
credentials:
username: "admin"
password: "secure_password"
token_path: "data.access_token"マサチューセッツ工科大学
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credentials | Yes | Login credentials as key-value pairs | |
| header_name | No | Header name to use for the token | Authorization |
| login_url | Yes | API login endpoint URL | |
| method | No | HTTP method to use | post |
| token_path | No | Path to token in the response (e.g., 'data.accessToken') | token |
| token_prefix | No | Token prefix to use in Authorization header | Bearer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_header | No | Authentication header name (if different from standard) | |
| auth_token | No | Authentication token (if not using the currently authenticated session) | |
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| use_session_auth | No | Whether to use the current session authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | Password for authentication | |
| username | Yes | Username for authentication |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jwt_token | Yes | JWT token to analyze for vulnerabilities |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authorization_url | No | OAuth2 authorization endpoint URL (for authorization code flow) | |
| client_id | Yes | OAuth2 client ID | |
| client_secret | No | OAuth2 client secret | |
| grant_type | No | OAuth2 grant type | client_credentials |
| password | No | Password (for password grant type) | |
| redirect_uri | No | Redirect URI (for authorization code flow) | |
| scope | No | OAuth2 scope | |
| token_url | Yes | OAuth2 token endpoint URL | |
| username | No | Username (for password grant type) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| parameter_name | Yes | Name of the parameter to test for path traversal | |
| use_auth | No | Whether to use current authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_header | No | Authentication header (if any) | |
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| request_body | No | Request body (for POST/PUT requests) | |
| request_count | No | Number of requests to send | |
| request_delay_ms | No | Delay between requests in milliseconds |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| use_auth | No | Whether to use current authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| request_body | No | Request body (for POST/PUT requests) | |
| use_auth | No | Whether to use current authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| original_value | Yes | Original value for the parameter | |
| parameter_name | Yes | Name of the parameter to test for SQL injection | |
| use_auth | No | Whether to use current authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expires_in | No | Token expiration time in seconds | |
| refresh_token | No | Refresh token (if available) | |
| token | Yes | Authentication token | |
| token_type | No | Token type (Bearer, JWT, etc.) | Bearer |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | API endpoint to test | |
| http_method | No | HTTP method to use | GET |
| parameter_name | Yes | Name of the parameter to test for XSS | |
| use_auth | No | Whether to use current authentication if available |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0api_loginauth_bypass_checkauth_statusbasic_authclear_authjwt_vulnerability_checkoauth2_authpath_traversal_checkrate_limit_checksecurity_headers_checksensitive_data_checksql_injection_checktoken_authxss_checkScored across 14 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.
Security scanner for MCP servers. Detect vulnerabilities, prompt injection, and tool poisoning.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
