SpanHound
PYPI · SPANHOUND
Capture local agent traces and inspect failures, approvals, and run comparisons.
Available components
Last scanned (7 hours ago)
Scores higher than 78% of PyPI servers
Category Monitoring and Observability
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 1 of 30 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to abhishekash/spanhound). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 7 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability57
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 570 tokens (~47/item across 12 items; 12 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management30
- Stability observed for 9 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 12 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 13 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
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.
- 23 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 22 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 19 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Oct 26 +42
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.07 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 15 Oct 26 −41
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: Stability not yet verified: we do not have a sandbox capture of the MCP schema this version of the package serves yet. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.6.1 functional
- 14 Oct 26 +26
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- First check of Judged manipulation: pass security
- Stability: Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window). security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 0 functional
- First check of Schema quality: fail functional
- First check of Schema quality: fair functional
- First check of Destructive annotations: pass functional
- First check of Schema quality: pass functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 100 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 23 Oct 2026 · Analysed pypi/spanhound@0.6.1
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | abhishekash/spanhound |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/abhishekash/spanhound/.github/workflows/publish-spanhound.yml@refs/tags/v0.6.1 |
| Rekor log index | 3263577640 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:e4a9d476f500906432c8d054d6772b6d83b69c722c4c8a6accfef6c559548ace |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 30 packages
| Packages resolved | 30 |
|---|---|
| No linked repository | 1 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
approval_log ~54
Human-in-the-loop audit: every approval/denial/edit, who decided, and the rationale. Use when asked 'why did the agent get to do X?' or 'what was denied?'.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
compare_runs ~33
Compare selected trace-id prefixes for latency, cost, tokens, tools, and failures.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_ids | array | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
failure_report ~34
Show bounded, redacted tool/provider failures and their actionable diagnostics.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
list_runs ~45
List recent agent runs: task, model, duration, tool use, human decisions, cost. Use first to find the trace_id for deeper inspection.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
recent_activity ~43
Poll newly written spans using a cursor; useful while an agent run is still active.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | – | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
run_summary ~28
Compact summary of one run (accepts trace_id prefix).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_id | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
search_spans ~46
Substring search over span names/attributes, e.g. a tool name, file path, or 'denied'.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| needle | string | yes | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
security_audit ~40
Audit caller identity, tenant, server provenance, risk, and approval evidence for tool calls.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
slowest_spans ~48
Top-k slowest spans. Use for 'why was this run slow?'. Omit trace_id to search all runs.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | integer | – | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
span_tree ~34
Nested span tree of a run — the shape of what the agent did, with durations.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_id | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
token_usage ~29
Token and cost totals. Omit trace_id to aggregate across all runs.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
tool_stats ~45
Rank tools by errors, denials, latency, and call volume to find unhealthy integrations.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| tool_name | – | – | – |
| trace_id | – | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the SpanHound MCP server?
SpanHound runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx spanhound. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · spanhound
claude mcp add abhishekash-spanhound -- uvx spanhound
What is the SpanHound MCP server?
SpanHound is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.abhishekash/spanhound. Capture local agent traces and inspect failures, approvals, and run comparisons. This page covers its PyPI package (spanhound).
Is the SpanHound MCP server safe to use?
SpanHound scores 80 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 23 October 2026. Its build provenance is signed and verified. 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 SpanHound MCP server expose?
SpanHound exposes 12 tools: list_runs, run_summary, span_tree, slowest_spans, approval_log, and 7 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 479 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the SpanHound MCP server still maintained?
SpanHound is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 23 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the SpanHound MCP server under?
SpanHound declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.