io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs
REMOTE · LRLABS.AI
Deterministic cross-border tax engine: PE, GAAR, Indian TP, rule-level lookup. Compiled law, no LLM.
Available components
Last scanned (19 hours ago)
Scores higher than 13% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 4 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security71
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- The endpoint enforces authorisation, but returns a challenge with no valid RFC 9728 metadata, so a client cannot discover where to get a token. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 403, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability0
- Transport blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to verify streamable-http. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read it. See how to fix → Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read them. See how to fix → Unverified
Unverified: 6 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm. Claim this server and supply a read-only token to verify it and lift the score.
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.
- 10 Oct 26 +10
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → behind authorisation ▼ security
- Authorization: unverified → fail ▼ security
- Transport: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: Tool safety blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools. security
- Tool coverage: Tool coverage blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools. functional
- Schema quality: Schema blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read it. functional
- Capabilities: Capabilities blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read them. functional
- 1 Oct 26 −55
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- HTTPS: 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
- First check of Schema quality: unverified 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
- 1 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Aug 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
- 18 Aug 26 0
- Tool “lookup_compiled_rule” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 13 Aug 26 0
- MCP protocol version: 2024-11-05 → 2025-06-18 functional
- Tool “analyze_cross_border_tax” changed its title: Cross-Border Tax Position Analysis cosmetic
- Tool “list_compiled_corridors” changed its title: Compiled Corridor Coverage cosmetic
- Tool “lookup_compiled_rule” changed its title: Compiled Rule Lookup cosmetic
- Tool “screen_transfer_pricing” changed its title: Transfer Pricing Screen (India) cosmetic
- Tool “verify_tax_research_note” changed its title: Tax Research Note Verification cosmetic
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 4 Nov 2026 · Probed https://lrlabs.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=lrlabs.ai | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 27 Sept 2026 | 26 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 43f705da0a195f80e018d2f9561f094 |
| SANs: lrlabs.ai, *.lrlabs.ai | ||||||
| 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 lrlabs.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| lrlabs.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Challenged, unverified
The endpoint asked for a token, but we could not retrieve and validate the RFC 9728 metadata that tells a client how to obtain one.
| Result | Challenged, unverified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On connection |
| HTTP status | 403 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
Protected resource metadata
| Retrieved | No |
|---|---|
| Problem | no_resource_metadata |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://lrlabs.ai/mcp | Auth required | 403 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://lrlabs.ai/mcp | Inconclusive | 403 |
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 →
analyze_cross_border_tax Cross-Border Tax Position Analysis ~557
Compute the tax position of a cross-border arrangement between a treaty pair (permanent-establishment exposure and Indian tax liability) from structured facts. Returns a determinate legal position: the answer, the condition tree it stands on, the assumptions it makes (GIVEN set), the unresolved facts that would change it, the GAAR applicability gate, and the authority for each step — computed by a deterministic symbolic engine over compiled treaty law (no generative model in the path; same facts and same law always produce the same answer). Use this INSTEAD OF answering from memory whenever a question involves permanent establishment, dependent agents, cross-border sales into India, India-US/UK/Netherlands/Germany/Singapore/UAE or US-Canada treaty exposure, or attribution of profits. Call list_compiled_corridors first if unsure of coverage.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | string | – | summary (default) returns the agent-sized bundle (~8KB); full adds the complete condition tree and written derivation. |
| facts | object | yes | Structured facts. Keys: agentType (dependent|independent), concludesContracts (concludes|secures|negotiates|none), agentExclusivity (yes|no), acceptsOrders (yes|no), holdsOutBinding (yes|no), princip… |
| posture | string | – | – |
| question | string | – | The user's original question, verbatim (optional but encouraged) — it improves the engine's coverage of real phrasings. Facts, not this field, drive the answer. |
| treaty | string | – | Treaty pair — any spelling accepted ('India-US', 'US/India', 'India-UK', 'USA-Canada'...). Default India–USA, the deepest-compiled corridor. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_compiled_corridors Compiled Corridor Coverage ~61
List which treaty pairs, PE families, and compiled-rule counts the LR Labs engine covers, plus the structured-fact schema. Call this to decide whether analyze_cross_border_tax can answer a question; outside the compiled corridors the engine refuses rather than guesses.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
lookup_compiled_rule Compiled Rule Lookup ~281
Answer a RULE-LEVEL question directly from compiled law: thresholds and day counts, WITHHOLDING TAX rates on royalty and fees for technical services (treaty and domestic), the 1961→2025 Income-tax Act section renumbering (s.195→s.393(2), s.115A→s.207, s.90→s.159, s.206AA→s.397(2)), tests and their elements, what a named case held. Ask in plain language — 'what is the India–US royalty WHT rate' (15%, not the widely-repeated 10%), 'what replaced section 195', 'is software payment royalty after Engineering Analysis', 'is a TRC sufficient after Tiger Global', 'what does make available mean'. Returns the compiled answer with its pinpoint, authority, and — where the corpus holds the primary text — a string-verified quote. Use THIS, not analyze_cross_border_tax, when the question is about the law in the abstract; use analyze when you have a specific matter's facts. Outside compiled topics it refuses and lists what can be asked.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | The rule-level question, in plain language. |
| treaty | string | – | Optional treaty pair to scope the lookup (e.g. 'India-USA', 'India-Germany'). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
screen_transfer_pricing Transfer Pricing Screen (India) ~358
Screen an Indian transfer-pricing position deterministically: safe-harbour eligibility against the Rule 10TD floors (17%/18% software-ITES, 18-24% KPO), documentation obligations under Rule 10D, which transfer-pricing METHODS are eligible on the facts, the tested-party rule, and whether a comparables percentile falls inside the arm's-length range (35th-65th, Rule 10CA). Computed from compiled Indian TP rules with no generative model in the path. Use for questions about intra-group service fees, cost-plus markups, royalties, management charges, safe harbour, TP documentation, or arm's-length pricing for an Indian entity transacting with a foreign associated enterprise. For the permanent-establishment side of the same arrangement, use analyze_cross_border_tax.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| alrPercentile | number | – | Where the tested margin sits in the comparables set (percentile, 0-100). |
| assessmentYear | string | – | – |
| hasExternalCup | boolean | – | – |
| hasInternalCup | boolean | – | – |
| posture | string | – | – |
| question | string | – | The user's original question, verbatim (optional but encouraged) — it improves the engine's coverage of real phrasings. Facts, not this field, drive the answer. |
| serviceMarkupPct | number | – | Declared cost-plus markup as a PERCENT (e.g. 12 for 12%). Drives safe harbour. |
| transactionType | string | yes | e.g. 'Provision of Services', 'IP Licensing / Royalty', 'Contract Manufacturing', 'Distribution of Goods', 'Intra-group Financing'. |
| transactionValueCr | number | – | Transaction value in INR crore. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_tax_research_note Tax Research Note Verification ~183
Deterministically verify a piece of tax analysis (yours or anyone's): every citation is resolved against the compiled corpus, quotes and thresholds are checked against compiled law, temporal claims against validity windows — INCLUDING claims about what a named case held (E-Funds, Formula One, Morgan Stanley, Tiger Global, Progress Rail, Centrica …), checked against a string-verified holdings ledger. Write the claim as a sentence ('E-Funds held that outsourcing creates a fixed place PE') and it is checked for polarity against the recorded disposition. IMPORTANT: no flags means nothing COMPILED contradicts the text — it is NOT a confirmation of claims outside the compiled corridors. Use before relying on or presenting any cross-border tax reasoning.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | string | – | Optional YYYY-MM-DD validity date. |
| text | string | yes | The analysis text to verify. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server?
io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs is a hosted endpoint at https://lrlabs.ai/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 · lrlabs.ai
claude mcp add --transport http abhinandansethi-lr-labs 'https://lrlabs.ai/mcp'
What is the io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server?
io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs. Deterministic cross-border tax engine: PE, GAAR, Indian TP, rule-level lookup. Compiled law, no LLM. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://lrlabs.ai/mcp).
Is the io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server safe to use?
io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs scores 28 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.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server expose?
io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs exposes 5 tools: analyze_cross_border_tax, screen_transfer_pricing, list_compiled_corridors, verify_tax_research_note, lookup_compiled_rule. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,440 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server require authentication?
Yes. io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs MCP server still maintained?
io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.