RRepoGEO

REPOGEO REPORT · LITE

Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security

Default branch main · commit e49700a1 · scanned 6/4/2026, 10:57:24 PM

GitHub: 698 stars · 129 forks

AI VISIBILITY SCORE
22 /100
Critical
Category recall
0 / 2
Not recommended in any query
Rule findings
1 pass · 1 warn · 0 fail
Objective metadata checks
AI knows your name
1 / 3
Direct prompts that named your repo
HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

Action plan is what to do next — copy-pasteable changes prioritized by impact. Category visibility is the real GEO test: when a user asks an AI a brand-free question that should surface Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security, does the AI actually recommend you — or your competitors? Objective checks verify the metadata signals AI engines weight first. Self-mention check detects whether AI even knows you exist by name.

Action plan — copy-paste fixes

3 prioritized changes generated by gemini-2.5-flash. Mark items done after you ship the fix.

OVERALL DIRECTION
  • highreadme#1
    Clarify 'MCP' and repo's nature in README's opening

    Why:

    CURRENT
    Everything you need to know about Model Context Protocol (MCP) security.
    COPY-PASTE FIX
    This is an awesome list of everything you need to know about Model Context Protocol (MCP) security, including resources for pentesting, exploiting, and securing MCP implementations.
  • mediumlicense#2
    Add a LICENSE file

    Why:

    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Create a LICENSE file in the repository root with the MIT License text.
  • lowhomepage#3
    Add repository URL as homepage

    Why:

    COPY-PASTE FIX
    Set the repository's homepage URL to `https://github.com/Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security`.

Category GEO backends resolved for this scan: google/gemini-2.5-flash, deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash

Category visibility — the real GEO test

Brand-free queries asked to google/gemini-2.5-flash. Did AI recommend you, or someone else?

Same questions for every model — switch tabs to compare answers and rankings.

Recall
0 / 2
0% of queries surface Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security
Avg rank
—
Lower is better. #1 = top recommendation.
Share of voice
0%
Of all named tools, what % are you?
Top rival
Open Policy Agent (OPA)
Recommended in 1 of 2 queries
COMPETITOR LEADERBOARD
  1. Open Policy Agent (OPA) · recommended 1×
  2. Rego · recommended 1×
  3. HashiCorp Vault · recommended 1×
  4. JSON Schema · recommended 1×
  5. Ajv · recommended 1×
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    How to secure Model Context Protocol implementations against common vulnerabilities?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. Open Policy Agent (OPA)
    2. Rego
    3. HashiCorp Vault
    4. JSON Schema
    5. Ajv
    6. Pydantic
    7. OWASP ESAPI
    8. JWT (JSON Web Tokens)
    9. jose
    10. PyJWT
    11. Prometheus
    12. Grafana

    AI recommended 12 alternatives but never named Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer
  • CATEGORY QUERY
    Where can I find resources for pentesting and exploiting Model Context Protocol systems?
    you: not recommended
    AI recommended (in order):
    1. OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications
    2. Garak
    3. LLM-Attacks
    4. Gandalf
    5. ART
    6. TextAttack
    7. LangChain Security
    8. Guardrails AI
    9. NeMo Guardrails
    10. OWASP Web Security Testing Guide
    11. Penetration Testing Execution Standard

    AI recommended 11 alternatives but never named Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security. This is the gap to close.

    Show full AI answer

Objective checks

Rule-based audits of metadata signals AI engines weight most.

  • Metadata completeness
    warn

    Suggestion:

  • README presence
    pass

Self-mention check

Does AI even know your repo exists when asked about it directly?

  • Compared to common alternatives in this category, what is the core differentiator of Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security?
    pass
    AI did not name Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • If a team adopts Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security in production, what risks or prerequisites should they evaluate first?
    pass
    AI named Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security explicitly

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

  • In one sentence, what problem does the repo Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security solve, and who is the primary audience?
    pass
    AI did not name Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security — likely talking about a different project

    AI answers can be confidently wrong. Read for accuracy: does it match your actual tech stack, audience, and differentiator?

Embed your GEO score

Drop this badge into the README of Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security. It auto-updates whenever the report is rescanned and links back to the latest report — easy public proof that you care about AI discoverability.

RepoGEO badge previewLive preview
MARKDOWN (README)
[![RepoGEO](https://repogeo.com/badge/Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security.svg)](https://repogeo.com/en/r/Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security)
HTML
<a href="https://repogeo.com/en/r/Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security"><img src="https://repogeo.com/badge/Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security.svg" alt="RepoGEO" /></a>
Pro

Subscribe to Pro for deep diagnoses

Puliczek/awesome-mcp-security — Lite scans stay free; this card itemizes Pro deep limits vs Lite.

  • Deep reports10 / month
  • Brand-free category queries5 vs 2 in Lite
  • Prioritized action items8 vs 3 in Lite