io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp
REMOTE · LSOATZZWPLTPYDWYFQQV.SUPABASE.CO
AI-powered Hong Kong SFC regulatory intelligence. Bilingual EN/ZH compliance queries.
Available components
Last scanned (18 hours ago)
Scores higher than 65% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 6 Nov 2026.
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 916 tokens (~91/item across 10 items; 10 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage98
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 93% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety75
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- 0 of 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation; "autonomous_task" implies "execute" and declares readOnlyHint instead, contradicting what its own name says it does. See how to fix → Fail
- An AI judge read all 10 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities20
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2024-11-05; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Checks we ran (12)
- TLS certificate
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Authorization in Endpoint SecurityAuthorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 6 Nov 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 31 Oct 26 +51
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
- MCP protocol: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- 26 Oct 26 −48
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: 0.80 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 24 Oct 26 −3
- Stability: pass → 0.77 functional
- 1 Oct 26 0
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
- MCP protocol: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 24 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the whole tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 6 Nov 2026 · Probed https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=supabase.co | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 24 Oct 2026 | 22 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | d2b50611cd88e9c50e4e2231f4d3f059 |
| SANs: supabase.co, *.supabase.co | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| co. | DS published | 7786 | 8 | Verified |
| supabase.co. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
autonomous_task ~124
Execute a complex multi-step regulatory task autonomously. VIGO will plan the execution strategy, gather information from multiple sources (regulations, enforcement, knowledge graph), and synthesize a comprehensive report. Use for due diligence, compliance planning, license acquisition roadmaps, or any task requiring multiple analysis steps.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | Optional background context about the company or situation |
| output_format | string | – | Desired output format |
| task | string | yes | High-level task description, e.g. 'Perform due diligence on applying for Type 9 license with virtual asset management' |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
checklist_lookup ~139
Search the SFC compliance checklist by topic, licence type, or MIC function (CF1-CF8). Returns compliance items with legal references, SOP guidance, case law, and grey area analysis. Use for questions about regulatory obligations, MIC responsibilities, procedural guidance, or compliance requirements.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | Optional: filter by compliance category |
| licence_type | string | – | Optional: filter by licence type (e.g., 'Type 1', 'Type 9') |
| query | string | yes | Search query in Chinese or English (e.g., 'FRR月報提交', 'MIC CF7 duties', 'complaint handling') |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compliance_check ~154
Perform a compliance health check for a licensed corporation. Input company profile, get a compliance risk assessment covering FRR capital, RO configuration, MIC roles, annual obligations, and regulatory focus areas.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aum | string | – | Assets under management, e.g. '500M HKD' |
| business_areas | array | – | Business areas, e.g. ['securities dealing', 'asset management'] |
| has_vatp | boolean | – | Whether the firm deals with virtual assets |
| license_types | array | yes | License types held, e.g. ['Type 1', 'Type 9'] |
| num_ros | number | – | Number of Responsible Officers |
| num_staff | number | – | Total number of staff |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compliance_score ~52
Calculate compliance health score for a company. Requires company_id from the Portal system. Returns total items, completed, overdue, and score percentage.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | string | yes | Company UUID from OrphicOne Portal |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_license_guide ~64
Comprehensive guide for a specific SFC license type: exam papers, capital requirements, fit-and-proper criteria, CPD hours.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aspect | string | – | – |
| license_type | string | yes | License type: 'Type 1' through 'Type 13' |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
latest_updates ~50
Get latest SFC regulatory updates: circulars, enforcement news, VATP developments, consultation papers.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | – |
| count | number | – | Number of results, 1-10 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
query_regulation ~108
Query Hong Kong SFC regulatory knowledge. Covers licensing (Type 1-13), compliance, exams, CPD/CPT, AML/CFT, virtual assets (VATP/ASPIRe), and more. Supports English and Chinese.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | string | – | Response language |
| license_type | string | – | Optional: SFC license type filter, e.g. 'Type 1', 'Type 9' |
| question | string | yes | Your regulatory question in English or Chinese |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
risk_assessment ~69
Assess compliance risk of a planned business activity. Returns Red/Yellow/Green risk rating with regulatory basis and recommended actions.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | string | yes | Description of the planned business activity |
| license_types | array | – | Relevant license types |
| urgency | string | – | How urgent is this activity |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_enforcement ~71
Search SFC enforcement actions including fines, suspensions, bans, and prosecutions. Search by company, person, or violation type.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | Search term: company name, person, or violation type |
| year | number | – | Optional year filter (e.g. 2025) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
sop_guide ~85
Get step-by-step Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidance for common compliance processes. Available SOPs: KYC onboarding, FRR monthly return, complaint handling, STR filing. Returns detailed steps with responsible person, legal basis, and estimated time.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| licence_type | string | – | Optional: licence type for context |
| process | string | yes | Which SOP process to retrieve |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server?
io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp is a hosted endpoint at https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co
claude mcp add --transport http 365xbusiness-vigo-mcp 'https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp'
What is the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server?
io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp. AI-powered Hong Kong SFC regulatory intelligence. Bilingual EN/ZH compliance queries. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://lsoatzzwpltpydwyfqqv.supabase.co/functions/v1/vigo-mcp).
Is the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server safe to use?
io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp scores 76 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server expose?
io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp exposes 10 tools: query_regulation, search_enforcement, latest_updates, get_license_guide, compliance_check, and 5 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 916 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server require authentication?
No. We connected to io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server still maintained?
io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp, covering TLS certificate, HTTPS, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 8 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about io.github.365xbusiness/vigo-mcp: Authorization. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.