damn-vulnerable-MCP-Server

An intentionally vulnerable Model Context Protocol (MCP) server and companion web tools (inspector, dashboard, exfil listener) for security training: it simulates a fictional company with multiple departmental toolsets and challenge scenarios that demonstrate common attack classes (prompt/tool injection, SQL/command/path injection, privilege escalation, data exfiltration, TOCTOU, etc.).

Evaluated Mar 30, 2026 (0d ago)
Repo ↗ Ai Ml mcp security-training vulnerable-by-design agent-security python json-rpc training ctf
⚙ Agent Friendliness
60
/ 100
Can an agent use this?
🔒 Security
24
/ 100
Is it safe for agents?
⚡ Reliability
31
/ 100
Does it work consistently?

Score Breakdown

⚙ Agent Friendliness

MCP Quality
55
Documentation
70
Error Messages
0
Auth Simplicity
95
Rate Limits
60

🔒 Security

TLS Enforcement
10
Auth Strength
5
Scope Granularity
10
Dep. Hygiene
45
Secret Handling
60

Project is explicitly ‘intentionally vulnerable’ and not meant for production. No auth described; multiple tools intentionally allow insecure behaviors for training (e.g., SQL/command/path injection patterns, privilege escalation, exfiltration concepts). TLS details for any HTTP components are not provided. Uses a shared SQLite DB across departments (not isolated). Fake data reduces risk of real sensitive leakage, but the service design is still unsafe if exposed to untrusted parties.

⚡ Reliability

Uptime/SLA
0
Version Stability
40
Breaking Changes
50
Error Recovery
35
AF Security Reliability

Best When

Used locally or in isolated containers for education and experimentation, with fake/seeded data.

Avoid When

Avoid deploying publicly or sharing the service/DB across untrusted users, since the project explicitly includes vulnerabilities and cross-department data access.

Use Cases

  • Hands-on security training for agents using MCP
  • Defensive evaluation of agent/tool use under realistic failure modes
  • Red-team style exercises in a controlled sandbox
  • Building/validating detection and mitigation strategies for agent vulnerabilities

Not For

  • Production use or any environment where misuse could cause harm
  • Real-world sensitive data access or exfiltration testing against external systems
  • Environments requiring strong security boundaries or strict isolation between tool domains

Interface

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

Authentication

OAuth: No Scopes: No

No authentication described for the MCP server or companion services; intended for local/isolated training. If exposed, it would be trivially accessible.

Pricing

Free tier: No
Requires CC: No

Open-source-style educational project; no hosted pricing information provided.

Agent Metadata

Pagination
none
Idempotent
False
Retry Guidance
Not documented

Known Gotchas

  • The MCP server communicates over stdio (JSON-RPC), not HTTP—agents must spawn/connect via an MCP host configuration.
  • The inspector proxy exists but is an HTTP wrapper around the stdio MCP process; avoid assuming direct HTTP calls to the MCP server.
  • Difficulty modes intentionally weaken protections (e.g., ‘zero sanitization’ at Beginner), so agent behavior and expected failures vary by mode.
  • Shared SQLite across departments means cross-domain effects are expected (and intentionally enabled), which can surprise agents relying on isolation.

Alternatives

Full Evaluation Report

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

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.

6510
Packages Evaluated
19893
Need Evaluation
586
Need Re-evaluation
Community Powered