Ida Pro MCP vs Phishunt — MCP Server Comparison | AllMCPs
Side-by-Side Model Context Protocol Comparison
Ida Pro MCP vs Phishunt
In-depth architectural comparison of the Ida Pro MCP and Phishunt 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.
At a Glance & Executive Verdict
Ida Pro MCP
Security · Local stdio
Quality: 65/100 (Great) | Auth: No auth required
Phishunt
Security · Remote HTTP/SSE
Quality: 52/100 (Good) | Auth: No auth required
Verdict Summary: Choose Ida Pro MCP if you need specialized Security tools running via a local process. Choose Phishunt if your workspace requires Security integration with remote web transport. Both servers can be configured concurrently in your client's mcpServers manifest.
Which MCP Server Should You Choose?
Choose Ida Pro MCP when:
You need dedicated capabilities in the Security domain.
You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
Your security boundary fits: No auth required (BYOK (Pay Provider Direct)).
Primary tools included: IDA Pro decompilation access, Disassembly inspection, Database comments, renaming, and type updates.
MCP server for IDA Pro, allowing you to perform binary analysis with AI assistants. This plugin implement decompilation, disassembly and allows you to generate malware analysis reports automatically.
Public phishing feed: suspicious/confirmed phishing URLs detected hourly. No auth, CC0.
Ida Pro MCP is categorized under Security and uses a local stdio subprocess. In contrast, Phishunt belongs to Security using remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport. Select Ida Pro MCP when you need capabilities focused on security and Phishunt when you require tools for security.
List active phishings targeting a brand (e.g. `microsoft`).
get_recent_detections
Delta sync: detections since an ISO date.
get_brand_metadata
Curated brand metadata (display name, category, AI characterisation, active count).
get_cert_metadata
Factual metadata for an abused TLS intermediate CA (operator, root, key type, siblings).
search_phishings
Free-text search across active phishing URLs/domains/IPs (min 3 chars).
analyze_url
Passive phishing-signal analysis of any URL/domain - returns a single adjudicated `verdict` (phishing / likely_phishing / suspicious / no_evidence / not_assessed) plus the supporting evidence (URL-shape heuristics, stored score/verdict if known, external-feed cross-reference, historical detections)…
analyze_url_deep
ACTIVE deep analysis of a URL (contacts the target: HTTP + TLS cert + RDAP + NS + GeoIP, SOCKS5-isolated) and re-scores it with the full 5-layer engine. Slow (5-15s), token-gated, and rate-limited (shared 50/day budget, single-flight) — requires `DEEP_TOKEN` configured on this Worker; use only when…
get_related_infrastructure
Find infrastructure/content overlap for a known indicator (shared IP, cert, nameservers, favicon, etc.); surfaces the possible campaign / suspected cluster it belongs to.
get_campaigns
List possible campaigns / suspected clusters (shared-infrastructure groupings), optionally filtered by brand or active-only.
get_campaign
Full detail for one possible campaign / suspected cluster: evidence breakdown, every member indicator, export links.