toolbox

toolbox/sectool is a CLI + MCP server that enables collaborative application security testing between a human operator and an AI agent. It provides a wire-fidelity HTTP(S) MITM proxy (native, and optional Burp as a front-end), captures and replays authenticated browser/proxy traffic, supports crawling/diffing/reflection detection and out-of-band interaction testing (OAST via Interactsh), and exposes these capabilities as MCP tools (plus CLI commands sharing state).

Evaluated Mar 30, 2026 (21d ago)
Repo ↗ Security security-testing appsec mcp mitm-proxy pentesting oast websocket replay agent-collaboration go
⚙ Agent Friendliness
63
/ 100
Can an agent use this?
🔒 Security
41
/ 100
Is it safe for agents?
⚡ Reliability
24
/ 100
Does it work consistently?

Score Breakdown

⚙ Agent Friendliness

MCP Quality
78
Documentation
72
Error Messages
0
Auth Simplicity
95
Rate Limits
10

🔒 Security

TLS Enforcement
70
Auth Strength
30
Scope Granularity
20
Dep. Hygiene
50
Secret Handling
40

Security-relevant strengths: supports HTTPS interception via user-installed CA to enable accurate testing; provides workflow guidance to reduce excessive agent behavior. Security concerns/unknowns: no documented authentication/authorization for the local MCP server interface (likely intended for localhost trust). Tooling manipulates potentially sensitive captured traffic (including cookies/JWTs) and thus requires careful handling of local artifacts and logs; the provided content does not specify redaction or secure storage. Dependency hygiene and detailed security practices are not verifiable from the provided README/metadata alone.

⚡ Reliability

Uptime/SLA
0
Version Stability
45
Breaking Changes
20
Error Recovery
30
AF Security Reliability

Best When

You need agent-assisted, authenticated, stateful web app testing where a human can drive the browser/UI and the agent can analyze and mutate the resulting traffic via MCP.

Avoid When

You cannot install/use a MITM CA cert or otherwise cannot inspect/modify traffic (corporate policy, strict client constraints), or when you require formal SLAs and SaaS-style operational guarantees.

Use Cases

  • Interactive appsec testing where a human performs authentication and UI actions while an agent explores and mutates captured flows
  • Validating vulnerability reports by replaying and diffing captured request/response pairs
  • Endpoint and form discovery via crawling seeded from proxy history
  • Injection/reflection triage by detecting reflected parameters across encoding variants
  • Out-of-band callback checks (OAST) for blind behaviors using Interactsh
  • Regression-style testing by exporting/editing request bundles and resending

Not For

  • Automated, fully headless vulnerability scanning without a human/agent workflow
  • General-purpose API testing for environments where MITM proxying is disallowed or impractical
  • Use as an authorization boundary (it helps testing; it does not replace proper authz/authn controls)

Interface

REST API
No
GraphQL
No
gRPC
No
MCP Server
Yes
SDK
No
Webhooks
No

Authentication

Methods: None described for local MCP/CLI access (implied local usage) Optional browser/proxy authentication to the target app handled by the user
OAuth: No Scopes: No

No service-to-service API auth is described for the local MCP server; access appears intended for local use. Agent/user authentication to the target application is handled via interactive browser/proxy session.

Pricing

Free tier: No
Requires CC: No

Open-source CLI/tooling (MIT license per repository metadata). No pricing model indicated in provided content.

Agent Metadata

Pagination
none
Idempotent
False
Retry Guidance
Not documented

Known Gotchas

  • Requires a working MITM setup (proxy configuration + CA installation for HTTPS interception) or Burp MCP availability.
  • The tool is not a scanner; agent success depends on the human providing appropriate authentication/UI state and selecting appropriate workflow mode.
  • Workflows can exclude crawling tools in test-report mode; agents need to respect workflow instructions.
  • OAST requires external callback infrastructure (Interactsh) and waiting/polling for events.
  • Proxy fidelity (HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, WebSocket) may introduce complexity for certain edge cases; agent should handle protocol-specific artifacts carefully.

Alternatives

Full Evaluation Report

Comprehensive deep-dive: security analysis, reliability audit, agent experience review, cost modeling, competitive positioning, and improvement roadmap for toolbox.

AI-powered analysis · PDF + markdown · Delivered within 30 minutes

$99

Package Brief

Quick verdict, integration guide, cost projections, gotchas with workarounds, and alternatives comparison.

Delivered within 10 minutes

$3

Score Monitoring

Get alerted when this package's AF, security, or reliability scores change significantly. Stay ahead of regressions.

Continuous monitoring

$3/mo

Scores are editorial opinions as of 2026-03-30.

8642
Packages Evaluated
17761
Need Evaluation
586
Need Re-evaluation
Community Powered