io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs
REMOTE · LRLABS.AI · SCANNED SEP 20
Deterministic cross-border tax engine: PE, GAAR, Indian TP, rule-level lookup. Compiled law, no LLM.
Available components
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 Security57
- 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 5 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
- 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 & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability64
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1440 tokens (~288/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- 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 Coverage91
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 72% 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; "screen_transfer_pricing" implies "transfer" and declares readOnlyHint instead, contradicting what its own name says it does. See how to fix → Fail
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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'
{
"mcpServers": {
"abhinandansethi-lr-labs": {
"url": "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"abhinandansethi-lr-labs": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.abhinandansethi-lr-labs] url = "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"abhinandansethi-lr-labs": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add abhinandansethi-lr-labs --url 'https://lrlabs.ai/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
abhinandansethi-lr-labs:
url: "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"abhinandansethi-lr-labs": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add abhinandansethi-lr-labs -t streamable-http -u 'https://lrlabs.ai/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"abhinandansethi-lr-labs": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://lrlabs.ai/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 1 Sept 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 30 Aug 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Aug 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Aug 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 24 Aug 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 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
- 11 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
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 20 Sept 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 | 1 Aug 2026 | 30 Oct 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 48fe5cc537ea7a5d13c5e54491e5c5a9 |
| SANs: 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 | 3799 | 8 | Verified |
| lrlabs.ai. | absent | 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 |
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 | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://lrlabs.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://lrlabs.ai/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 →
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.
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 73 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?
No. We connected to io.github.abhinandansethi/lr-labs without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
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 20 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.