M
MCP Directory CURATED DIRECTORY
911 MCP servers indexed
中文
← Back to directory
COMPARE UP TO 4 SERVERS

Compare MCP servers

Compare scores, permissions, risks, and fit in one decision-focused table.

DimensionCVE MCP ServerTurn Claude into a security intelligence analyst.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS50 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability9 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions12 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance8 / 2016 / 20
Documentation10 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience11 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Security operations, vulnerability-management, and DevSecOps teams.
  • Claude users who need aggregated security data from multiple public sources.
  • Teams that want to start with key-free tools and add API credentials progressively.
  • Engineering teams scaling AI coding agents while controlling spend
  • Platform teams that need auditable, rollback-aware agent execution records
  • Organizations using multiple agents (Claude, Codex, Gemini) under one governed flow
Not for
  • Active scanning or probing of infrastructure.
  • Workflows requiring writes to external systems or automated remediation.
  • Use cases requiring a local CVSS v4.0 calculator.
  • Developers who just want a simple code-completion helper without run governance
  • Teams unwilling to accept local JSONL run records with HMAC signing
  • Environments without a supported adapter (Claude/Codex/Gemini CLIs, direct provider, or verifier-only)
Required permissions
  • Requires outbound HTTPS access to the relevant external APIs.
  • API keys are supplied through environment variables; some network, threat, and URL tools require specific credentials.
  • Stores responses in a local SQLite cache and writes an audit log.
  • urlscan_check can submit URLs for scanning; most other functions are read-oriented.
  • Read/write access to the configured repo root (writable scope restrictable via --allow-path/--deny-path)
  • Ability to invoke the chosen agent CLI (Claude/Codex/Gemini, etc.) and its underlying model account
  • Local disk writes for run records, receipts, and share outputs (share/run-receipt., etc.)
  • Execution of user-configured verifier commands (e.g. npm test)
Risks and side effects
  • CVE IDs, IPs, hashes, domains, and package names are sent to the relevant external APIs.
  • Provider rate limits, credential requirements, and data freshness can affect results.
  • The risk score is a composite indicator and does not replace human judgment; KEV entries are forced to at least CRITICAL/76.
  • The server does not actively scan, but URLScan submissions send URLs to that service.
  • Verifier commands are executed; poorly chosen verifier commands carry security risk despite preflight policy checks
  • Cost and token figures may be estimates (labeled with provenance) and should not be treated as settled accounting
  • Receipt integrity must be verified before use as trustworthy evidence; missing rollback evidence is flagged as EVIDENCE_BOUNDARY
  • Policy defaults come from martin.config.yaml and can be overridden by CLI flags; misconfiguration can loosen safety boundaries
Supported clientsClaude Desktop, Claude CodeClaude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools280