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.

DimensionT3MP3ST MCP ServerA multi-agent red-teaming platform for authorized security testing.MartinLoop MCP ServerAn independent control layer that gives AI coding agents budgets, brakes, and receipts
FMRS51 / 100 · D79 / 100 · B
Reliability8 / 2012 / 20
Security and permissions5 / 2018 / 20
Maintenance12 / 2016 / 20
Documentation15 / 2018 / 20
Setup experience11 / 2015 / 20
Best for
  • Security teams operating under written authorization and defined rules of engagement
  • Red-team researchers and security educators
  • MCP users able to manage a local Node.js environment
  • 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
  • Targets without explicit written permission
  • Users seeking unrestricted remote scanning or execution
  • Users expecting fully validated end-to-end multi-agent exploitation
  • 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
  • Access to network and security-testing resources within the authorized scope
  • A local Node.js environment, installed dependencies, and any configured agent or model access
  • The supplied material does not specify MCP-client permissions or authentication
  • 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
  • This is an offensive-security tool and must be used only against owned or explicitly authorized systems
  • Incorrect scoping may cause unauthorized access, data loss, or legal exposure
  • The README says coordinated multi-agent exploitation remains unproven and unreliable
  • External security tools and optional arsenal components may affect targets
  • 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 Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, VS Code, GitHub Copilot, Continue
Tools10