Attestix vs MCP Security & Vulnerability Auditor

In-depth architectural comparison of the Attestix and MCP Security & Vulnerability Auditor MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Attestix when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Attestix Details

M

Choose MCP Security & Vulnerability Auditor when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore MCP Security & Vulnerability Auditor Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Attestix Security	M MCP Security & Vulnerability Auditor Security
Summary	AI agent identity, W3C credentials, EU AI Act compliance. 47 MCP tools.	Static AST security scanner detecting command injection, leaked secrets, and SSRF in MCP tools.
Category & Scope	Security	Security
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "attestix": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "attestix"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mcp-security-vulnerability-auditor": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "mcp-security-vulnerability-auditor"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons