Skip to main content
Glama
rifkyekayama

Kali Linux MCP Server

by rifkyekayama
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to Kali Linux MCP Server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • redteam-mcp

      samirjani03
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A penetration testing MCP server that runs 20 hacking tools inside a Kali Linux Docker container, enabling AI assistants to execute security scans and attacks via natural language.
      2
      -

    • Pentest Tools MCP Server

      ch1nhpd
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      An MCP server that integrates various penetration testing tools, enabling security professionals to perform reconnaissance, vulnerability scanning, and API testing through natural language commands in compatible LLM clients like Claude Desktop.
      7
      -

    • Kali-Mcp-Toolkit

      trymonoly
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that exposes over 500 Kali Linux security tools to AI models for automated penetration testing and security auditing. It includes modules for tool execution, interactive terminal management, and sandboxed code editing across 12 security categories.
      16
      Apache 2.0

    • Kali MCP Server

      magichrist
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Production-grade MCP server that exposes Kali Linux penetration testing tools to AI agents, enabling automated reconnaissance, web application testing, vulnerability assessment, and more.
      -
    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

    C2.5/5.0

    Scored across 30 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Some tools have clear distinct purposes (e.g., scan_ports vs. scan_ssl_tls), but there is significant overlap between high-level scanners and specific validators (e.g., scan_client_side_vulnerabilities overlaps with validate_xss, scan_injection_attacks overlaps with validate_sql_injection). Also, scan_website_comprehensive and scan_host_vulnerabilities have ambiguous boundaries.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_ports, enumerate_directories, generate_pdf_report) and consistently use snake_case. The deviation is minor, with a few longer names or mixed types (e.g., connect_metasploit vs. get_wifi_passwords), but overall the pattern is predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With 30 tools, the server covers a broad domain, but the count feels slightly heavy for a single server. Several tools could be merged (e.g., redundant scanners/validators), and the inclusion of both scanning and reporting tools expands scope. It approaches the upper limit before becoming unwieldy.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the main phases of a security assessment: reconnaissance, scanning, exploitation, and reporting. Notable gaps include no tool for vulnerability prioritization or post-exploitation beyond Metasploit. However, core workflows like scanning, exploiting, and reporting are well-represented.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources