Skip to main content
Glama
tarhou

chokepoint-finder-mcp

by tarhou
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to chokepoint-finder-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • dsh-vulnerability-remediation

      dongsheng123132
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Offers 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

    • MCP SSDLC Security Toolkit

      vuongdat67
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Automates 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
    • Rigour MCP by rigour-labs

      Rigour MCPofficial

      rigour-labs
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables 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.
      27
      MIT

    • MCP Shamash

      NeoTecDigital
      F
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables 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
      -
    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

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 10 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    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.

    Tool Count5/5

    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.

    Completeness5/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources