chokepoint-finder-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to chokepoint-finder-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables security remediation as one auditable transaction: freezing pre-change exposure, computing blast radius, gating on policy and approval, binding execution receipts, verifying post-state, and rolling back on failure, all sealed in a SHA-256 evidence chain.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceOffers proof-only tools to inspect and verify remediation closure receipts, deterministically confirming asset coverage, fixed artifact deployment, rescanning, deadline compliance, and zero-residual closure without executing scans or touching live systems.MIT
- 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 gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to run deterministic, fully local static security and compliance audits of code, configurations, and dependencies through 32 MCP tools covering 24 vulnerability categories. It also detects the project stack, generates risk reports and checklists, suggests stack-aware remediations, and re-validates fixes to confirm vulnerabilities were eliminated.1MIT

Rigour MCPofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to self-govern by scanning code for hardcoded secrets, structural violations, and AI drift in real-time, providing fix packets for automatic remediation.27MIT- FlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables security auditing, penetration testing, and compliance validation with tools like Semgrep, Trivy, Gitleaks, and OWASP ZAP. Features strict project boundary enforcement and supports OWASP, CIS, and NIST compliance frameworks.7-
TDQS
Scored across 10 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct roles in the workflow, but some pairs like chokepoint_payload and chokepoint_plan (both produce outputs for a chokepoint) could be confused. Similarly, chokepoint_supply_evidence and chokepoint_preflight are closely related input/evaluation steps.
All tools share the consistent 'chokepoint_' prefix, but the second part mixes verbs (ingest, setup, rank, verify) with nouns (payload, plan) and verb phrases (mark_executed, supply_evidence). This is readable but not perfectly uniform.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool maps to a distinct phase in the chokepoint-finding and remediation workflow, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from setup and ingest to ranking, evidence gating, plan/payload generation, execution marking, and verification. The design intentionally leaves out direct execution, which is documented and consistent with the server's zero-trust posture.