Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@HackTricks MCP Server Show me XSS payloads"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for searching and querying HackTricks pentesting documentation directly from Claude.
Quick lookup - One-shot exploitation info with alias support (sqli, xss, ssrf, etc.)
Grouped search results - Results aggregated by file with match count, title, and relevant sections
Page outline - Quick table of contents to identify relevant sections
Section extraction - Read specific sections instead of full pages (token-efficient)
Cheatsheet mode - Extract only code blocks/commands from pages
Category browsing - Discover available topics and file paths
Fast grep search - Uses ripgrep for instant results
Security hardened - Protection against command injection and path traversal
Related MCP server: Bug Bounty MCP Server
npm install -g hacktricks-mcp-serverThe postinstall script automatically clones the HackTricks repository (~2 minutes on first install).
Add to your Claude settings (~/.claude/settings.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"hacktricks": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["hacktricks-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Restart Claude Desktop and try: "Search HackTricks for SQL injection"
git clone https://github.com/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server.git
cd hacktricks-mcp-server
git submodule update --init --recursive
npm install
npm run buildConfiguration for source install:
{
"mcpServers": {
"hacktricks": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/hacktricks-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}Once configured in Claude Desktop, you can ask:
"Search HackTricks for SQL injection techniques"
"Give me SUID privilege escalation commands"
"Show me XSS payloads"
"List all pentesting categories in HackTricks"
"How do I exploit XXE vulnerabilities?"
The server provides 7 specialized tools for efficient HackTricks searching.
hacktricks_quick_lookup⚡ One-shot exploitation lookup. Searches, finds best page, and returns exploitation sections + code blocks in one call.
Parameters:
topic (string, required): Attack/technique to look up (e.g., 'SUID', 'sqli', 'xss', 'docker escape')
category (string, optional): Category filter for faster results
Supported aliases: sqli, xss, rce, lfi, rfi, ssrf, csrf, xxe, ssti, idor, jwt, suid, privesc
Example:
hacktricks_quick_lookup("SSRF", category="pentesting-web")Benefits: Reduces 3+ tool calls to 1 for "how do I exploit X" questions.
search_hacktricksSearch through HackTricks documentation. Returns results GROUPED BY FILE with match count, page title, and relevant section headers.
Parameters:
query (string, required): Search term or regex pattern
category (string, optional): Filter to specific category (e.g., 'pentesting-web')
limit (number, optional): Max grouped results (default: 20)
Example output:
Found matches in 5 files for: "SUID"
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
📄 **Linux Privilege Escalation**
Path: src/linux-hardening/privilege-escalation/README.md
Matches: 12
Sections: SUID Binaries | Finding SUID | GTFOBins
Preview:
L45: Find files with SUID bit set...
L78: Common SUID exploitation techniques...
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────get_hacktricks_outlineGet the table of contents of a page (all section headers). Use this BEFORE reading full pages to understand structure.
Parameters:
path (string): Relative path to markdown file
Example output:
# Linux Privilege Escalation
## Enumeration
### System Information
### Network
## SUID Binaries
### Finding SUID Files
### Exploiting SUID
## CapabilitiesBenefits: See page structure in ~20 lines vs reading 500+ lines.
get_hacktricks_sectionExtract a specific section from a page by header name. Much more efficient than reading the full page.
Parameters:
path (string): Relative path to markdown file
section (string): Section header to extract (partial match, case-insensitive)
Example:
get_hacktricks_section("src/linux-hardening/privilege-escalation/README.md", "SUID")Benefits: Read just "SUID Binaries" section (~200 tokens) instead of entire page (~3000 tokens).
get_hacktricks_cheatsheetExtract only code blocks from a page. Perfect when you just need commands, payloads, or examples.
Parameters:
path (string): Relative path to markdown file
Example output:
find / -perm -4000 2>/dev/null./vulnerable_suid -pBenefits: Skip explanatory text when you just need "give me the command".
get_hacktricks_pageGet full content of a HackTricks page.
Parameters:
path (string): Relative path to markdown file
Warning: Pages can be very long (3000+ tokens). Consider using get_hacktricks_outline + get_hacktricks_section instead.
list_hacktricks_categoriesList categories and their contents.
Parameters:
category (string, optional): Category to expand
Without category: Lists top-level categories With category: Shows full directory tree with file paths
For optimal token usage, Claude should:
Search with category filter → Get grouped results with context
Get outline of relevant page → See structure before reading
Extract specific section → Read only what's needed
Get cheatsheet → Quick command reference
Before (inefficient):
search_hacktricks("SUID") → 50 raw lines
get_page(file1) → 3000 tokens
get_page(file2) → 2500 tokens
Total: ~5500 tokens, 3 callsAfter (efficient):
search_hacktricks("SUID", category="linux-hardening") → Grouped results
get_outline(best_match) → 20 lines
get_section(best_match, "SUID") → 200 tokens
Total: ~400 tokens, 3 callsNode.js (v18 or higher)
ripgrep (rg) - usually pre-installed on macOS/Linux
Bun (for package management)
Watch mode:
bun run devTest locally:
bun run startContributions are welcome! If you'd like to improve the server:
Fork the repository
Create a feature branch (git checkout -b feature/improvement)
Make your changes and test locally
Submit a pull request
Please ensure your PR includes tests for new features and maintains the existing code style.
MIT
HackTricks by Carlos Polop
Built with Model Context Protocol SDK
Extract ALL CODE BLOCKS from a page (commands, payloads, scripts, one-liners). Skips explanatory text. Perfect for: 'give me the exploit command', 'show me the payload', 'what's the syntax'. Returns code with language tags (bash, python, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it extracts all code blocks, skips explanatory text, and returns code with language tags. This is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description appropriately sets expectations about output format and content filtering. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple extraction tool, the transparency is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that first state the primary action, then provide usage examples, then specify return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns. The sibling tools are differentiated, and the usage guidance is practical. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'path' has a schema description 'Path from search results'. The description does not add further details about format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool extracts all code blocks from a page, skipping explanatory text. It gives specific examples of user intents ('give me the exploit command', 'show me the payload') that align with this tool, and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hacktricks_page or get_hacktricks_section, which retrieve full pages or sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios ('Perfect for: ...'), making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive examples are strong. The sibling tool names imply that for full prose or outlines, other tools should be used, but that is not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get TABLE OF CONTENTS (all section headers) of a page. Returns ~20-50 lines showing page structure. Use this FIRST after search to: (1) verify page is relevant, (2) find exact section names for get_hacktricks_section. Cost: ~100 tokens vs 3000+ for full page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output size (~20-50 lines), that it shows structure, and token cost. It implies read-only behavior. While not exhaustive, it is sufficient for a simple outline tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining output, giving usage guidance, and providing cost context. No wasted words, front-loaded with most important info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output characteristics, usage workflow, and cost. No critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'path' already described. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets the table of contents (all section headers) of a page. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is used after search and before get_hacktricks_section, and mentions token cost savings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST after search' and provides two specific use cases: verify page relevance and find exact section names. Also compares token cost to full page, guiding when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get FULL page content. ⚠️ EXPENSIVE: Pages average 3000-15000 tokens. PREFER: get_hacktricks_section for specific topics, get_hacktricks_cheatsheet for just commands. Only use this when you need the complete page or multiple sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path from search results (e.g., 'src/linux-hardening/privilege-escalation/README.md') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses expense (3000-15000 tokens), a key behavioral trait. Could add more on auth or errors, but the cost warning is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, warning, guidance. Front-loaded and no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks description of return format (no output schema), but given simplicity of tool (one param) and clear purpose, it is mostly complete. Could add return type info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'path' description. No examples or formatting details provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets FULL page content, distinguishing it from siblings that return sections or cheatsheets. The verb 'Get' and resource 'page content' is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use (need complete page or multiple sections) and when to prefer alternatives (get_hacktricks_section, get_hacktricks_cheatsheet). Also warns about cost, guiding appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Extract ONE SECTION from a page. MOST EFFICIENT way to read content. Typical sections: 'Exploitation', 'Enumeration', 'Prevention', 'Example', 'Payload', 'PoC', 'Bypass'. Use get_hacktricks_outline first to see exact section names. Returns ~200-500 tokens vs 3000+ for full page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path from search results | |
| section | Yes | Section name (partial match, case-insensitive). From outline or common: 'exploitation', 'enumeration', 'bypass', 'payload', 'example', 'poc', 'prevention', 'detection' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses token range (~200-500 vs 3000+ for full page), implying safe read-only behavior. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or auth, but given context, sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value (purpose, efficiency claim, typical sections, prerequisite, comparative token count).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter hints, and expected output size. Referencing sibling tool (get_hacktricks_outline) completes the workflow guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting partial match and case-insensitivity for section, and enumerates common section names, going beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Extract ONE SECTION from a page' and positions it as the 'MOST EFFICIENT way to read content'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by offering targeted extraction rather than full page retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends using get_hacktricks_outline first to find exact section names, and lists common section names. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and directs the agent to a prerequisite step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
⚡ ONE-SHOT exploitation lookup. Searches, finds best page, and returns exploitation sections + code blocks. Use for: 'how do I exploit X', 'give me X payload', 'X attack technique'. Handles aliases (sqli→SQL injection, xss→Cross-site scripting, rce, lfi, ssrf, etc.). Returns: page title, exploitation sections, and top 5 code blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Attack/technique to look up. Examples: 'SUID', 'sqli', 'xss', 'ssrf', 'jwt', 'docker escape', 'kerberoasting'. Aliases auto-expand. | |
| category | No | Optional category filter. Speeds up search. Common: 'pentesting-web', 'linux-hardening', 'windows-hardening', 'network-services-pentesting' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: it searches, finds the best page, and returns exploitation sections and top 5 code blocks. It also discloses alias handling, which is important for query flexibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with a clear tagline and purpose, followed by use cases and return format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the return format (page title, exploitation sections, top 5 code blocks) and key behaviors like alias handling and one-shot lookup. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions including examples and alias handling. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a one-shot exploitation lookup, combining search and retrieval of exploitation sections and code blocks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hacktricks or get_hacktricks_page by specifying it returns exploitation content directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists use cases like 'how do I exploit X', 'give me X payload', 'X attack technique'. It does not provide explicit when-not usage or alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Browse HackTricks structure. Without params: list all categories. With category: show all pages in that category. Use when: (1) unsure which category to search, (2) want to explore what's available, (3) need exact file paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category to explore. Popular: 'pentesting-web', 'linux-hardening', 'windows-hardening', 'network-services-pentesting', 'mobile-pentesting' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently explains behavior for both with and without parameters. No side effects are expected, and the read-only nature is implied. Could mention return format but not essential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a three-point list. Every sentence earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers both invocation modes and usage context. A minor gap is the lack of return format, but the tool is exploratory so it's acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and includes popular values. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's effect (listing pages) and the dual behavior when omitted. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'browse' and resource 'HackTricks structure', and distinguishes between two modes: listing all categories vs showing pages in a category. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_hacktricks_page or search_hacktricks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios in a bullet list (unsure category, explore, need file paths). It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search HackTricks for pentesting techniques, exploits, and security info. Returns results GROUPED BY FILE with: page title, match count, relevant sections, and top matches. WORKFLOW: search → get_hacktricks_outline (see structure) → get_hacktricks_section (read specific part). ALWAYS use category filter when possible - saves time and tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search term. Be specific (e.g., 'SUID privilege escalation' not just 'privilege'). Supports regex. | |
| category | No | STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. Common categories: 'pentesting-web' (XSS,SQLi,SSRF), 'linux-hardening' (privesc,capabilities), 'network-services-pentesting' (SMB,FTP,SSH), 'windows-hardening', 'mobile-pentesting', 'cloud-security'. Use list_hacktricks_categories to see all. | |
| limit | No | Max files to return (default: 20). Lower = faster. Set to 5 for quick lookups. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return format (grouped by file, with page title, match count, etc.) and gives practical advice on limit parameter. Does not mention auth, rate limits, or destructive actions, which is acceptable for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then workflow suggestion. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format and gives usage context. It covers purpose, parameter advice, and workflow. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting query supports regex, providing common category examples, and advising on limit values (lower=faster, set to 5 for quick lookups). Adds moderate context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches HackTricks for pentesting techniques and returns results grouped by file with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings by providing a workflow (search → get_hacktricks_outline → get_hacktricks_section) and recommending category filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit workflow guidance and recommendation to always use category filter to save tokens. No direct comparison to other sibling tools but context signals show alternatives; the description indirectly suggests this as the starting point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.3.4get_hacktricks_cheatsheetget_hacktricks_outlineget_hacktricks_pageget_hacktricks_sectionhacktricks_quick_lookuplist_hacktricks_categoriessearch_hacktricksEach tool serves a distinct purpose: extracting code blocks, outlines, sections, full pages, quick lookups, category browsing, and search. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_hacktricks_section, search_hacktricks). The compound name hacktricks_quick_lookup deviates slightly but is still action-oriented and clear.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a specialized reference server, covering all needed operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the full workflow: search, browse categories, get structure, get specific section, get code blocks, and full page retrieval. No obvious missing operations for a read-only reference.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Offline methodology engine for authorized penetration testing, CTF, and security research.
Provides tools for searching Google Workspace documentation and much more.
Search Stack Exchange questions, fetch Q&A threads as markdown, look up tag FAQs and user profiles.
Search arXiv/Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex + medical evidence (PubMed/Europe PMC) + LaTeX/PDF tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server