Skip to main content
Glama
unstrike

attackforge-mcp

by unstrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to attackforge-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • FlagForge MCP Server

      ballz4z4
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to interact with the FlagForge REST API, allowing them to search solved CTF challenges, work on live event challenges, record evidence, submit flag candidates, and write markdown writeups.
      19
      -

    • yeepforge

      capture0x
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLM hosts like Claude Code, Cursor, or Claude Desktop to drive YeepForge's 28 web penetration testing tools (recon, crawling, SQLi/XSS testing, nuclei scans) and set engagement targets via Model Context Protocol, using the host's own LLM subscription.
      8
      MIT

    • inti-brain

      Srj0210
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Connects AI assistants to Intigriti by syncing programs, scopes, and rules of engagement, then provides tools to search and generate actionable attack briefings.
      2
      MIT
    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

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    Tools are mostly separated by AttackForge resource (projects, vulnerabilities, testcases, assets, etc.), and action lists clarify intended use. However, raw_request overlaps every domain tool, and testcases.analytics duplicates analytics.failed_testcases, creating avoidable ambiguity. Other boundaries like project notes vs. remediation notes and assets project/library scope are readable but require care.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case domain nouns (projects, vulnerabilities, testsuites, assets), with raw_request as the main deviation. Action names are also mostly snake_case, though there are minor style differences such as list vs. list_by_asset vs. add_testcase/add_testcases. The convention is predictable overall despite not using a strict verb_noun tool-name pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Eleven tools is well-scoped for a broad AttackForge API surface, and each tool maps to a clear domain or capability. The action-dispatch design keeps the top-level tool count manageable while still exposing many operations. No tool appears redundant enough to warrant removal beyond the raw_request escape hatch.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers core AttackForge workflows across projects, vulnerabilities, test suites, test cases, assets, remediation notes, analytics, reports, utilities, and caching. raw_request ensures practically any missing SSAPI endpoint is reachable, though direct delete/lifecycle operations are not uniformly exposed for every resource. A few overlaps and the absence of dedicated user/admin endpoints prevent a perfect score.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources