Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to mitmproxy-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI agents to intercept, inspect, and modify HTTP traffic, with tools for searching, filtering, and managing captured requests and interceptors.
      11 npm
      8
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      HTTP(S) and WebSocket debugging proxy, like Proxyman or Charles, that AI agents drive over MCP: summarize captured traffic, read requests with secrets masked, diff a working request against a failing one, mock responses, set breakpoints and throttle the network.
      20
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      F
      maintenance
      An MCP server that enables AI assistants to control HTTP Toolkit for intercepting, inspecting, and debugging HTTP(S) traffic from browsers, mobile devices, and Docker containers. It provides tools for server management, interceptor activation, and sending HTTP requests through natural language commands.
      23
      18 npm
      1
      MIT
    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      An MCP server that bridges LLMs with dynamic real-world data by leveraging Chrome DevTools Protocol to intercept and reconstruct network traffic, enabling AI agents to extract high-quality structured data from complex web environments.
      3
      89
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      A lightweight MCP server that enables LLMs to interact with any REST API via HTTP requests, with smart response truncation, TypeScript type generation, and field extraction.
      5
      18 npm
      1
      MIT

    TDQS

    B3.3/5.0

    Scored across 13 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: proxy lifecycle management, flow singular vs plural actions, and request sending. Descriptions clearly differentiate between creating a flow without sending versus sending a request.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent prefix_verb pattern with underscores (e.g., proxy_start, flows_list, flow_update). Singular vs plural prefixes are used appropriately for single vs batch operations.

    Tool Count5/5

    13 tools cover proxy management, flow CRUD, load/save, replay, and request sending without unnecessary overlap. The scope aligns well with the mitmproxy domain.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers the full lifecycle: proxy start/stop/status, flow capture, retrieval, creation, modification, deletion, persistence, and replay/send. No obvious gaps for standard proxy operations.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues