Top 10 MCP Servers for Cybersecurity in 2025 (Offensive, Defensive & OSINT Use Cases)

Introduction 

Cybersecurity teams are turning to MCP servers in 2025 because attack surfaces are growing faster than traditional tools can keep pace. Modern enterprises now operate thousands of APIs, distributed microservices, AI agents, and cloud workloads. 

As a result, defenders and red teams rely heavily on automation to understand what is happening inside these systems. MCP servers have emerged as one of the fastest growing automation layers, particularly because they allow AI systems to execute real security tasks safely.

Security organizations today face a dual challenge. Attackers are accelerating their use of automation, while internal teams are struggling with fragmented systems, scattered security data, and manual workflows. Engineering and DevSecOps teams often cannot access runtime security information quickly or safely enough to keep up with delivery demands. At the same time, companies want to adopt AI agents, but integrating those agents with internal tools, APIs, and telemetry requires a unified and secure interface.

MCP servers solve both problems. They provide developers and security teams with structured, governed access to the runtime intelligence they need to move quickly, and they give AI agents a single, consistent layer to interact with code repositories, cloud APIs, logs, and security tools. This removes integration bottlenecks, reduces manual coordination, and makes AI-driven automation safe and predictable.

Security organizations today face a dual challenge. Attackers are moving faster with automation, while internal teams are drowning in fragmented systems and manual workflows. The MCP research highlights that enterprises rely on an ever-growing mix of code repositories, cloud APIs, monitoring tools, documentation systems, and collaboration platforms. 

Before MCP, connecting an AI assistant to these systems required custom integrations for each tool, creating what the research calls an “M×N explosion of connectors” that slowed development and increased operational risk.

Industry reports show that more than 70 percent of security teams now use AI assisted automation for tasks such as reconnaissance, threat intelligence enrichment, log triage, and exploit research. At the same time, almost half of SOC alerts are either false positives or require repetitive manual effort. MCP servers solve these bottlenecks by orchestrating tools, scripts, scanners, and data sources through a single UI compatible layer. This allows AI assistants to work with real security tools while staying governed, controlled, and fully auditable.

MCP servers change this dynamic by offering a universal, standardized interface that allows AI systems to access tools, data, and infrastructure safely. This shift is already reshaping enterprise technology. 

Docker’s MCP Catalog launched with more than 100 verified servers, AWS integrated MCP directly into Bedrock Agents to remove integration bottlenecks, and developer platforms like Replit and Sourcegraph adopted MCP to power context-aware automation. The momentum demonstrates a clear industry trend: MCP is quickly becoming the standard for connecting AI with operational systems.

From a business perspective, MCP reduces integration cost, compresses investigation timelines, and improves the return on existing AI investments. MCP also supports enterprise governance through fine-grained server controls, predictable tool interfaces, and the ability to place identity, policy, and API-gateway protections around AI workflows.

Levo.ai complements MCP workflows by providing the AI security guardrails that teams need. Its platform validates actions before they run, detects risky patterns, tests automation pipelines, and ensures MCP powered agents operate safely inside enterprise environments. This combination gives teams confidence to scale AI driven security without losing control.

TL;DR

MCP servers provide AI assistants with controlled access to security tools and data, enabling teams to automate reconnaissance, scanning, enrichment, and analysis with strong guardrails. They offer a clean, standardized way for AI systems to interface with external tools, APIs, and internal systems. Security teams increasingly wrap their workflows and utilities, including scanners like Nmap, OSINT sources such as Shodan and VirusTotal, GitHub repositories, cloud APIs, and internal log stores, into MCP servers so that AI can run repeatable, auditable workflows quickly and consistently.

They have become essential for red teams and adversary simulation because they support automated recon, payload research, exploit development assistance, OSINT aggregation, and rapid environment mapping. Blue teams use MCP servers for log triage, threat enrichment, malware unpacking, and faster incident response. Threat intelligence teams rely on MCP to fetch WHOIS records, IP reputation data, passive DNS entries, and breach intelligence on demand. DevSecOps and security engineers use MCP servers to build secure, validated automation pipelines that prevent AI tools from overreaching or making unapproved changes.

They reduce manual effort, eliminate copy-and-paste workflows, and create an environment where AI-driven automation becomes predictable, controlled, and fully auditable.

What Are MCP Servers?

MCP servers, or Model Context Protocol servers, are control interfaces that allow AI systems to interact safely with tools, data sources, and infrastructure. They function as a secure translation layer that exposes only the specific capabilities an AI assistant is allowed to use. Each server defines what the model can access, and every operation can be governed and monitored through existing enterprise controls such as identity, API gateways, and logging.

Technically, an MCP server defines exactly what an AI model can see and what actions it can perform. It exposes a set of tools, resources, or prompt templates that the model can invoke. Security teams often wrap their own utilities and workflows, including scanners, OSINT sources, code repositories, internal APIs, and log stores, so that AI assistants can use them through a predictable, controlled interface. The AI never operates directly on a network or data store. It only calls the functions explicitly provided by the MCP server.

MCP servers also standardize how context is delivered to the AI. They return structured outputs, metadata, logs, and artifacts in a consistent format, allowing the model to work with clean, domain-specific information. This improves accuracy and enables security teams to maintain visibility and control over every AI-initiated action.

In practice, MCP servers are becoming a foundation for safe AI automation across security programs. Red teams use them for reconnaissance and exploit analysis. Blue teams rely on them for log triage and malware workflows. Threat intelligence teams use them for enrichment and rapid investigations. DevSecOps teams use them to build secure, validated automation pipelines without creating custom integrations for every tool.

Why MCP Matters for Red, Blue, and Purple Teams (break down by persona)

MCP servers are becoming essential to cybersecurity because they enable AI assistants to interact with tools and data in a controlled, governed, and auditable way. Each security persona benefits differently, but all gain safer automation and more consistent workflows.

Red Teams

Red teams use MCP servers to automate repetitive or time-consuming offensive tasks by wrapping their tooling in a safe interface.

Key uses include:

• Automated reconnaissance by wrapping tools such as Nmap, Shodan, DNS utilities, and GitHub queries in MCP servers
• Faster exploit research through curated, controlled tools exposed via MCP
• Payload generation and testing inside sandboxes that restrict what the model can execute

The result is higher coverage with less manual setup and without risking unsafe model actions during engagements.

Blue Teams

Blue teams rely on MCP servers to accelerate triage and investigation workflows by giving AI assistants structured, standardized access to security data.

Key uses include:

• Rapid log analysis across SIEM, endpoint, and API telemetry via MCP-exposed resources
• Automated incident triage with consistent, structured context supplied to the model
• Malware unpacking and static analysis using predefined MCP-wrapped tools

This improves response speed, reduces analyst fatigue, and ensures automated actions remain governed and safe.

Threat Intelligence Teams

Threat intelligence analysts use MCP servers to enrich and validate indicators at scale through predictable, policy-controlled interfaces.

Key uses include:

• WHOIS, DNS, and IP intelligence lookups through wrapped APIs
• Breach data checks, indicator correlation, and cross-source validation
• Automated enrichment pipelines that pull from OSINT and commercial feeds using MCP resources

MCP servers provide threat intelligence teams with a reliable, governed interface for high-volume enrichment workflows.

DevSecOps

DevSecOps teams use MCP servers to embed safe automation inside development and delivery pipelines without writing custom integrations for each tool.

Key uses include:

• Vulnerability scanning and misconfiguration checks as MCP tools
• Secure code analysis and dependency inspection
• Pre-deployment workflow testing using MCP servers that enforce guardrails

This ensures automated safety across CI/CD pipelines and reduces friction between engineering and security teams.

Security Engineers

Security engineers depend on MCP servers to safely connect internal tools, scripts, and APIs to AI assistants without exposing sensitive systems directly.

Key uses include:

• Controlled access to internal tools and automation scripts
• Enforcing permissions, policies, and guardrails through IAM, API gateways, and server-level logic
• Auditable, reviewable execution of every AI-initiated action

MCP servers allow enterprises to adopt AI-driven automation without introducing new attack paths or losing governance.

Evaluation Criteria: How to Assess an MCP Server

Choosing the correct MCP server requires understanding how well it fits into an organization’s security, automation, and governance requirements. The MCP Research document highlights several core principles that define what “good” looks like in an MCP ecosystem. These criteria help security teams evaluate whether a server is reliable, safe, and suitable for production workflows.

1. Clear and Well-Defined Capabilities

Every MCP server must declare its resources, tools, and prompt templates in a transparent, structured format. Teams must evaluate:

• Whether the server exposes only what is necessary
• How clearly each tool and resource is documented
• Whether input and output schemas are explicit
• Whether the server avoids overly broad or ambiguous capabilities

2. Safe Interaction Boundaries

MCP does not include its own native permissions model. Therefore, security depends on:

• How the server limits access to underlying systems
• Whether dangerous commands are restricted
• Whether sensitive operations require additional controls

3. Structured, Machine-Readable Output

MCP servers communicate through standardized JSON messages that define:

• Request parameters
• Tool results
• Resources and artifacts
• Metadata and structured context

High-quality servers provide clean, domain-specific outputs that models can interpret reliably.

4. Reliability, Stability, and Error Handling

An MCP server must behave like a production-grade interface. It should:

• Respond consistently
• Produce understandable errors
• Handle unexpected conditions gracefully

Unstable or unpredictable behavior can mislead AI assistants or break automated processes.

5. Compatibility with Enterprise Security Controls

Enterprises should favor MCP servers that work well with existing security measures. This includes:

• Authentication standards
• Policy enforcement
• Logging and auditing pipelines
• Zero trust architecture

A good MCP server fits naturally within the organization’s governance model.

6. Ease of Deployment and Extensibility

MCP servers should be lightweight and simple to run in diverse environments:

• Local machines
• CI/CD pipelines
• Containers
• Isolated analysis sandboxes

They should also be easy to extend so security teams can wrap internal tools and workflows quickly.

7. Alignment with MCP Ecosystem Best Practices

High-quality servers follow the core MCP design principles: simple interfaces, structured context, and precise separation between tools, resources, and templates. Servers built with these conventions integrate better with AI assistants and other MCP components.

Top 10 MCP Servers for Cybersecurity (2025)

These MCP servers represent the most important building blocks for AI-assisted security automation in 2025. They cover OSINT, code analysis, reconnaissance, log investigation, threat intelligence, and integration with internal infrastructure. Each is evaluated based on capability scope, practical usefulness, and alignment with safe AI automation principles.

Levo-MCP

Levo-MCP makes your runtime security intelligence securely accessible to both humans and AI agents. It transforms Levo’s live, versioned security graph into a scoped, governed API that exposes API specs, runtime traces, vulnerabilities, exploit data, authentication and authorization states, and test outcomes. Agents and DevSecOps teams can query real-time security intelligence and trigger validations or reproduce findings directly from ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, or internal agent frameworks — without relying on UI access, tickets, or tribal knowledge.

Core capabilities

• Agents That Act, Execute, and Automate: Scoped access to traces, test outcomes, auth states, and vulnerability details so agents can validate fixes, triage issues, and support remediation workflows autonomously.
• Unified, Secure Connectivity: Replaces numerous point integrations with a single RBAC-controlled interface, reducing attack surface while enabling frictionless access to production-grade telemetry.
• Enterprise-Grade Memory and Collaboration: Levo’s versioned knowledge graph becomes a persistent, multiteam, multi-agent memory, removing brittle DIY context layers.
• Trace-Linked Introspection and Debugging: Every query and action is tied to live, correlated traces, enabling teams and agents to instantly inspect root causes, broken flows, and remediation paths.
• Built-In Governance and Security: All MCP interactions are encrypted, logged, and controlled through granular RBAC, so security teams maintain full oversight of who can access what.
• Structured, Runtime-Aware Security Data: Levo’s eBPF sensors and Satellite engine produce continuously updated telemetry that becomes immediately usable for agents, engineers, and pipelines with no DevOps overhead.

Best for

DevSecOps, internal platform teams, security engineering, application security, compliance, and any organization adopting AI-assisted engineering or agentic workflows.

Why It Stands Out

Levo-MCP is one of the only MCP servers explicitly designed to expose runtime security intelligence in a governed, structured way. It enables safe automation directly tied to real application behavior, closing the visibility gap between agents, developers, and security teams. It cuts remediation cycles, accelerates secure delivery, and enables AI-powered workflows without increasing risk.

Pros

• Live, structured security intelligence accessible via MCP.
• Eliminates dependence on dashboards and manual coordination
• Agents and engineers can reproduce findings instantly.
• Accelerates fixes with precise, trace-linked vulnerability context
• Enables on-demand, audit-ready compliance reports
• Strong RBAC and governance model
• Reduces security and DevOps overhead while improving coverage

Limitations

• Requires deployment of Levo sensors and Satellite engine
• Maximum value achieved when teams map workflows to MCP-driven processes
• Enterprises must define RBAC and access scopes early for optimal governance.

OSINT-MCP

Provides structured, safe access to OSINT sources by wrapping public intelligence APIs behind a governed MCP interface. It allows AI assistants to aggregate reconnaissance and enrichment data without exposing sensitive systems or requiring direct internet scraping.

Core capabilities

• WHOIS, DNS, and ASN lookups
• Public IP/domain reputation checks
• Fetching OSINT feeds in structured formats
• Correlation of basic intel signals

Best for

Red teams, threat intelligence, OSINT analysts, attack surface monitoring.

Why It Stands Out

OSINT is one of the most common uses of MCP because AI agents rely on clean, structured data for investigations. MCP ensures that OSINT access stays predictable and controlled.

Pros

• Reduces manual OSINT pivoting
• Eliminates copy-and-paste research
• Scalable enrichment through consistent schemas

Limitations

• Relies on external OSINT API stability
• Rate limits may restrict automation volume.

Nmap-MCP

Allows teams to expose Nmap scanning functionality via a controlled MCP server, letting AI assistants automate reconnaissance steps in a sandboxed and auditable way.

Core capabilities

• Scoped port and service enumeration
• Structured scan results
• Support for environment mapping

Best for

Red teams, purple teams, external attack surface assessments.

Why It Stands Out

Nmap remains foundational for recon. MCP adds structure, repeatability, and safety to scanning workflows that models might otherwise misuse.

‍Pros

• Substantial value for automated recon
• Predictable and structured output
• Ideal for guided offensive workflows

Limitations

• Not an official MCP server
• Must be sandboxed to avoid unsafe scanning
• Careful scoping is required in enterprise environments

Shodan-MCP

Provides controlled access to Shodan’s internet-wide device and service intelligence through a scoped MCP interface.

Core capabilities

• Host lookups
• Port/service and banner metadata
• Vulnerability-enriched intel

Best for

Red teams, OSINT investigators, threat intel analysts.

Why It Stands Out

Shodan is a heavyweight OSINT source. MCP enables models to use it responsibly without uncontrolled API calls or broad queries.

Pros

• High-value OSINT enrichment
• Strong signal for recon and intel work
• Useful for rapid threat correlation

‍Limitations

• Not part of the official MCP catalog
• Requires Shodan API subscription
• Must avoid exposing unrestricted search capabilities

VirusTotal-MCP

Lets security teams wrap VirusTotal for safe, structured malware and IOC lookups. AI assistants can pull reputation data and threat metadata without raw access to sensitive data stores.

Core capabilities

• File hash analysis
• URL and IP reputation checks
• Malware classification metadata

Best for

SOC teams, malware analysts, threat intel.

Why It Stands Out

VirusTotal is one of the highest-signal enrichment sources; MCP makes its intelligence accessible to AI in a governed, repeatable workflow.

Pros

• High-quality threat attribution
• Easy to interpret via structured MCP outputs
• Ideal for triage and enrichment pipelines

Limitations

• Not an official MCP server
• VT API quotas limit aggressive automation

GitHub-MCP

Provides governed access to GitHub repositories, files, metadata, and search. It is one of the most mature MCP servers and a reference implementation in the ecosystem.

Core capabilities

• Repository browsing
• File retrieval
• Code search and metadata access
• Supplying structured code context to AI models

Best for

DevSecOps, code review, exploit research, secure development workflows.

Why It Stands Out

GitHub-MCP follows MCP design principles extremely well: simple, structured, and safe. It is widely used for code analysis and DevSecOps automation.

Pros

• Stable and well-supported
• Natural fit for code-aware AI workflows
• Clean, predictable JSON outputs

Limitations

• Requires appropriate GitHub token scopes
• Does not execute code or run actions

BurpSuite-MCP

Exposes non-destructive Burp Suite capabilities through MCP for controlled AppSec automation.

Core capabilities

• Passive crawling
• Issue enumeration
• Proxy and target metadata retrieval

Best for

Red teams, AppSec analysts, API testers.

Why It Stands Out

Burp is the center of many application security workflows. MCP makes parts of Burp accessible to AI without enabling unsafe active attacks.

‍Pros

• Strong for passive and metadata-oriented tasks
• Fits well into AppSec pipelines
• Helps automate repetitive triage steps

Limitations

• Active scanning should not be delegated to AI
• Setup requires Burp API configuration

Metasploit-MCP

Allows teams to wrap Metasploit utilities for enumeration, module metadata, and payload generation within safe boundaries.

Core capabilities

• Module listing and description access
• Payload generation in sandboxed environments
• Host and service information retrieval

Best for

Red teams, adversary simulation, exploit researchers.

Why It Stands Out

Metasploit is central to offensive workflows. MCP gives structure and safety to its otherwise powerful capabilities.

Pros

• Enables controlled offensive automation
• Helpful for exploit research preparation
• Safe when scoped and sandboxed

Limitations

• Not suitable for uncontrolled exploitation
• Requires strict guardrails
• Not an official MCP server

ThreatFox / AbuseIPDB MCP

Wraps popular threat intelligence feeds so AI assistants can enrich indicators safely and consistently.

Core capabilities

• Bad IP and domain lookups
• Malware and indicator feeds
• Threat classification metadata

Best for

SOC, threat intelligence, IR teams.

Why It Stands Out

IOC enrichment is one of the most common security use cases for MCP, and these feeds provide high-signal data for triage.

Pros

• Lightweight
• High-volume IOC checks
• Strong fit for automated triage

Limitations

• Dependent on feed freshness and API stability
• Not official MCP servers

Filesystem, Logs, and Parser MCPs

Provides controlled access to local files, logs, and artifacts through MCP. The official Filesystem MCP is one of the most widely used servers in the ecosystem.

Core capabilities

• Log file access
• Artifact retrieval
• Parsing structured security data
• Providing forensic context to AI assistants

Best for

Blue teams, incident responders, DevSecOps, engineering.

‍Why It Stands Out

Most security workflows rely on local context: logs, traces, and artifacts. Filesystem MCP provides this in a safe, scoped, read-only manner.

Pros

• Simple and stable
• Safe with path restrictions
• Foundational for many workflows

Limitations

• Requires scoping to avoid overexposure
• Read-only by default (which is safer)

Use Cases: How Security Teams Actually Use MCP Servers

MCP servers are already reshaping how cybersecurity teams automate, investigate, and validate security workflows. By standardizing access to tools, resources, and runtime data, MCP makes AI-driven automation predictable, auditable, and safe. 

The following examples show how modern security teams use MCP servers to accelerate their work without expanding risk.

Example 1: Automated Recon for a Red Team Assessment

Red teams commonly wrap reconnaissance utilities such as Nmap, DNS resolvers, Shodan queries, or GitHub search inside MCP servers.

• AI assistants can then:
• Enumerate exposed services
• Pull metadata from OSINT sources
• Identify potential entry points
• Aggregate reconnaissance findings into structured, model-ready results

Because MCP strictly defines tool inputs and outputs, the agent never issues unsafe commands or scans outside approved scopes. Recon becomes faster, repeatable, and fully auditable.

Example 2: SOC Triage

Blue teams use MCP servers to expose logs, telemetry, and relevant artifacts as structured resources instead of raw, unbounded data access.

An AI assistant can:

• Pull scoped SIEM data
• Analyze API or endpoint logs
• Summarize anomalies or suspicious sequences
• Correlate events across time and systems

MCP ensures that logs are provided in a predictable, machine-readable format, eliminating inconsistent data handling and reducing triage time. Each action is visible and governed through server-defined boundaries.

Example 3: Threat Intelligence Automation

Threat intelligence analysts wrap external enrichment APIs in MCP to avoid ad hoc scripts and manual pivoting. Agents use these controlled interfaces to:

• Retrieve WHOIS, DNS, passive DNS, and IP reputation data.
• Check domains and hashes against breach or malware feeds.
• Correlate multiple indicators into structured investigative summaries.

MCP keeps these interactions safe by exposing only the allowed API methods, preventing the model from making uncontrolled or overly broad queries. This turns enrichment into a repeatable intelligence pipeline.

Example 4: Secure Code Review (DevSecOps)

DevSecOps teams use MCP servers, such as GitHub-MCP, and internal scanners to provide AI assistants with structured code context and security findings.

This allows agents to:

• Retrieve repositories, files, and metadata.
• Inspect dependency graphs
• Review commit histories for risky changes.
• Surface misconfigurations or vulnerable patterns

Because the server defines exactly what the model can access, teams avoid the risk of overprivileged bots unintentionally reading entire codebases or repositories. The result is faster reviews with tighter governance.

Example 5: API Security Testing

Security engineering and AppSec teams wrap test engines, traces, and runtime context, through tools like Levo-MCP—to enable safe automation in API security workflows.

AI agents can:

• Generate custom testing payloads based on API specs.
• Reproduce findings using controlled test runners.
• Validate fixes with trace-linked runtime intelligence.
• Cross-reference vulnerabilities with authentication and authorization statesxz

MCP ensures all testing occurs through clearly defined tool interfaces, preventing models from issuing unapproved network calls or destructive actions. The combination of structured inputs, scoped capabilities, and governed execution turns API security testing into a deterministic, automated workflow.

MCP Security Risks and how to mitigate them 

MCP servers introduce powerful new capabilities, but they also expand the number of connectors, data flows, and execution paths inside an organization. This can broaden the attack surface if not managed correctly. Fortunately, the same principles that secure APIs, microservices, and internal automation can be applied directly to MCP deployments. With the proper guardrails, organizations can confidently adopt MCP while ensuring that AI-driven automation remains safe and governed.

Below are the key controls security teams should enforce.

1. Strong Authentication and Identity Federation

Every MCP server should be integrated into the enterprise authentication layer rather than relying on implicit trust or ad-hoc mechanisms.

How to secure it:

• Use OAuth 2.0 / OIDC so every MCP server becomes a registered resource server.
• AI applications obtain JWTs from the corporate IdP, and servers validate tokens on every request.
• Use service accounts or “bot identities” for AI agents, with strictly scoped privileges.
• Tie MCP access to corporate SSO so deprovisioning a user revokes all downstream AI access automatically.
• Use SDKs such as Descope’s MCP Auth libraries or open-source equivalents to avoid building brittle custom auth.
• This ensures that only authenticated and authorized users or agents can execute MCP tools.

2. Network Segmentation and Zero Trust Architecture

MCP traffic should be treated as untrusted by default, even inside the corporate network.

Recommended controls:

• Require TLS or mTLS for every MCP call.
• Use service meshes (Istio, Linkerd) or API gateways to enforce Zero Trust checks.
• For remote or employee-run MCP servers, require VPN or secure tunnels.
• Maintain strict allowlists: only your AI platform should be allowed to call MCP servers.
• Use gateway-level identity enforcement (like Kong Gateway) so every request is authenticated and validated.

Zero Trust segmentation ensures that even if one system is compromised, attackers cannot pivot to MCP servers.

3. Fine-Grained Authorization and Policy Enforcement

Because MCP does not yet include a native permissions model, enterprises must apply external policy enforcement.

How to implement it:

• Use Policy-as-Code frameworks like Open Policy Agent (OPA) to define rules for what tools can be called and when.
• Apply gateway-based ACLs or JWT claim enforcement using Kong or similar platforms.
• Enforce least privilege: each AI agent should only have access to the exact MCP tools it needs.

External policy layers prevent dangerous tool calls and reduce blast radius if an agent misbehaves.

4. Secrets Management and Secure Injection

Many MCP servers require API keys or credentials. These must never be hardcoded or stored in source control.

Recommendations:

• Use centralized secrets managers (Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, etc.).
• Inject secrets at runtime using Vault Agent Injectors or similar mechanisms.
• Rotate credentials frequently.
• Use secret-scanning tools (e.g., GitGuardian) in CI to prevent accidental exposure.
• Monitor unusual secret usage patterns and revoke compromised credentials immediately.

Consistent secret hygiene prevents credential leaks and reduces lateral movement risk.

5. Secure Execution Sandboxes

Some MCP servers may execute code or commands, which makes sandboxing essential.

Best practices:

• Run high-risk servers in isolated containers with no access to the host filesystem.
• Use gVisor, Firecracker, or other hardened runtime sandboxes.
• Restrict container privileges via AppArmor, SELinux, or Kubernetes policies.
• Limit network access: A server intended for staging should never reach production networks.

Treat MCP servers as potentially untrusted components — even if you built them — to enforce strong isolation.

6. Input Validation and Content Security

MCP servers often receive untrusted input derived from user prompts. Input must be validated rigorously.

Key protections:

• Enforce strict path restrictions for filesystem MCPs.
• Use parameterized SQL or whitelist-only queries for database MCPs.
• Apply rate limits for expensive tool calls.
• Mask or sanitize sensitive fields before returning data to AI models.
• Add DLP-like checks to detect PII or secrets before responses leave the server.

This prevents path traversal, injection, excessive data exposure, and unbounded agent behavior.

7. Monitoring, Logging, and Anomaly Detection

Every MCP action should be logged and monitored the same way as high-sensitivity API access.

Logging and detection should include:

• Tool invocation details, timestamps, and requesting identity.
• Feeding logs into the SIEM for correlation and alerting.
• UEBA to detect unusual agent behavior (e.g., excessive file reads or destructive actions).
• Alerts on high-risk operations, authentication failures, or unusual traffic patterns.
• Decoy MCP servers as honeypots to detect scanning or probing.

MCP servers are gateways to valuable data — treat them like prime targets for monitoring.

8. Use of API Security Platforms

API security solutions can analyze MCP traffic patterns and detect anomalies or misuse.

Benefits include:

• Detecting abnormal payload sizes or unusual request patterns.
• Identifying injection attempts or malformed requests.
• Automatically learning normal behavior for each MCP endpoint.

These platforms strengthen your ability to catch agentic misuse or prompt-driven exploitation attempts.

9. Secure Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for MCP Code

Apply mature, secure coding practices to MCP servers just as you would any other production service.

Core practices:

• Code reviews with security in mind.
• Static analysis and dependency scanning.
• Updating SDKs and libraries to avoid known vulnerabilities.
• Validating model-generated tool arguments before execution.
• Guarding against prompt injection and “function misuse” scenarios.

A secure SDLC ensures MCP servers don’t become the weakest link.

10. Emerging AI Security Guardrails

AI-specific security controls can sit between the model and the MCP server to validate requests before they run.

Examples include:

• “AI firewalls” that inspect tool requests and block or sanitize dangerous operations.
• Human-in-the-loop confirmations for destructive or costly actions.
• Policy models that validate arguments before forwarding to MCP.

These guardrails bring the same safety pattern used in function calling to the MCP world.

How to Choose the Right MCP Servers for Your Cybersecurity Workflow

Not all MCP servers introduce the same level of risk. Local, ad-hoc servers behave very differently from remote, persistent ones, and each category requires a distinct security approach. Understanding these differences helps organizations apply the proper controls without over-securing lightweight developer workflows or under-securing high-impact production systems.

Local MCP Servers

Local MCP servers are typically downloaded and run directly on developer laptops. They are short-lived and are often used for experimenting with tools or debugging workflows.

Usage characteristics

• Ad-hoc, ephemeral, and developer-controlled
• Minimal configuration or oversight
• Frequently created from community examples or GitHub repos

Dominant risks

• Supply-chain compromise from unverified packages or malicious repos
• Embedded secrets in cloned or forked server code
• Unvalidated tools that may run unsafe commands locally

Observability

• Very limited visibility
• Logs stored only on the local machine
• Rarely monitored by security teams

Security posture

• Treated like test scripts
• Almost no governance or lifecycle management
• Risky when connected to corporate networks or internal data

Remote MCP Servers

Remote MCP servers are hosted, long-running services used in shared, staging, or production environments. These require the same rigor as any enterprise API or automation system.

Usage characteristics

• Persistent services supporting teams or pipelines
• Exposed over networks, often reachable by multiple clients
• Used for real workloads involving sensitive data or runtime systems

Dominant risks

• Exposure from missing authentication or lack of TLS
• Prompt injection that could trigger unintended tool actions
• Data exfiltration if outputs are not filtered or scoped
• Public network access if endpoints are not properly gated

Observability

• Better than local, but still inconsistent
• Typically missing full API gateway capabilities
• Limited client identity tracking or auditability

Security posture

• Requires complete controls: authentication, RBAC, logging, and threat detection
• Must be integrated into security monitoring and governance frameworks
• Should be treated like a production API handling sensitive operations

Future Trends: The Evolution of MCP Servers in Cybersecurity

MCP is still early in its adoption curve, yet the pace of ecosystem growth shows that it is rapidly becoming a foundational integration layer for AI-driven workflows. The MCP Research document highlights several patterns that point toward how MCP will evolve across enterprise security environments in the coming years.

1.Standardized Enterprise Connectors Replace Custom Integrations

Organizations are moving away from one-off automation scripts and brittle integrations. MCP introduces a universal interface that allows internal teams to standardize how tools, APIs, and data sources connect to AI systems. Over time, enterprises will maintain curated catalogs of MCP servers just like they manage APIs and internal microservices today.

This mirrors the standardization trend once seen with REST, GraphQL, and service mesh adoption.

2. Rapid Expansion of the MCP Server Ecosystem

The nmber of official and community-built MCP servers is accelerating. Platforms across development, observability, and cloud operations are already shipping MCP-native connectors. As adoption grows, security teams will increasingly expect MCP support from commercial tools, scanners, and infrastructure providers. MCP is on track to become a default integration surface across the software ecosystem.

Security teams will increasingly expect MCP support as a standard feature, not an add-on.

3. Stronger Governance, Observability, and Policy Layers

As MCP usage expands into production environments, organizations will place more emphasis on:

• identity and authentication
• fine-grained access controls
• audit-ready logs
• policy enforcement
• secure sandboxes

MCP servers will sit behind API gateways, service meshes, and enterprise IAM systems to provide the same rigor applied to high-value operational APIs. Governance will become a central design principle rather than an afterthought.

4. Deep Integration Into Developer and Operational Toolchains

MCP’s design aligns naturally with how modern engineering teams work. Development environments, IDEs, terminals, build systems, and operational platforms are adopting MCP as a first-class interface. As this continues, MCP will become embedded across:

• code reviews
• testing
• debugging
• incident response
• infrastructure automation

This turns AI-driven workflows into everyday engineering primitives.

5. More Structured, Context-Rich Data for AI Systems

One of MCP’s most powerful capabilities is its ability to deliver structured, machine-readable context. Future servers will expose richer datasets such as:

• runtime traces
• dependency graphs
• log snapshots
• configuration metadata
• environment inventories

This will make AI reasoning more accurate, more deterministic, and easier to validate.

6. Adoption Across DevSecOps and Production Systems

Because MCP servers can be containerized, governed, and easy to deploy, they fit naturally into DevSecOps pipelines. As organizations gain confidence running MCP in staging and nonprod, more production workflows will shift to MCP-powered automation. This will accelerate secure delivery and help unify engineering and security processes.

7. Emergence of Secure Agent Execution Environments

As AI systems begin performing real actions, organizations will create controlled environments where agents can safely execute workflows. MCP servers will form the backbone of these environments, with layers of:

• sandboxing
• rate limiting
• RBAC
• runtime validation
• policy enforcement

This mirrors how enterprises secure microservices and container-based architectures.

8. Model- and Platform-Agnostic Automation Becomes the Norm

MCP’s vendor-neutral design ensures that tools can work with any LLM, agent framework, or automation platform. This portability will become increasingly important as organizations adopt multi-model and hybrid AI ecosystems. MCP becomes the stable control plane that outlives individual models or platforms.

9. AI Automation Moves From Opportunistic to Deterministic

MCP’s structured approach enables predictable tool calls, consistent outcomes, and reproducible workflows. As the ecosystem matures, organizations will rely less on prompt engineering and more on deterministic, policy-driven automation. MCP becomes the backbone for reliable agentic workflows rather than a best-effort assistant model.

10. Security Vendors Begin Shipping MCP-Native Capabilities

As the ecosystem grows, more security, observability, and infrastructure vendors will offer MCP servers that expose logs, findings, test results, and runtime intelligence. Security automation will increasingly flow through MCP instead of proprietary SDKs or custom scripts, creating a unified, governed entry point for AI-driven security operations.

Conclusion : How Levo.ai Complements MCP-Based Cybersecurity Workflows

MCP servers are becoming one of the fastest ways to bring safe automation into security programs. They let teams expose tools, logs, telemetry, and intelligence through a controlled, structured interface that AI systems can use without risking unauthorized actions. As organizations adopt AI-driven development and security workflows, MCP provides the connective tissue that makes these systems predictable and governable.

Levo.ai enhances MCP-driven workflows by exposing runtime security intelligence through a structured and access-controlled interface. Levo’s MCP Server gives both engineers and AI agents precise, real-time context about application behavior, vulnerabilities, and authentication logic. This allows developers to move faster, lets security teams automate deeper analysis without increasing workload, and gives compliance programs instant access to verified evidence. The result is faster delivery, stronger coverage, and fewer delays caused by missing or incomplete context.

By combining MCP’s standardized integration model with Levo’s real-time security graph and governance controls, organizations can accelerate agentic workflows while maintaining the level of trust and oversight required in modern enterprises. This keeps innovation moving while keeping risk firmly in check.

‍Book a demo to see it live!