1Court Directory
REMOTE · STATE.1COURT.AI
US county court directory: clerk, courthouse address, e-filing, filing fees, and case lookup.
Available components
Last scanned (6 hours ago)
Scores higher than 84% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Documents and Files
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 Security83
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability70
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1164 tokens (~194/item across 6 items; 6 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 Management50
- Stability observed for 15 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
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.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
- Tool “list_deadline_rules” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “calculate_deadline” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- “list_deadline_rules” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Tool “list_deadline_rules” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 164 → 190 ▼ functional
- “calculate_deadline” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- “list_deadline_rules” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Tool “list_deadline_rules” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 147 → 164 ▼ functional
- “calculate_deadline” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- “calculate_deadline” reworded the description of “court” cosmetic
- “list_deadline_rules” reworded the description of “court” cosmetic
- “list_deadline_rules” reworded the description of “state” cosmetic
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 −1
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- New tool “calculate_deadline” functional
- New tool “list_deadline_rules” 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 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://state.1court.ai/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=state.1court.ai | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 28 Oct 2026 | 26 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 54b184dbf050db12aed20cac60b8ea2c532 |
| SANs: state.1court.ai | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of state.1court.ai. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | DS published | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| 1court.ai. | DS published | 52445 | 13 | Verified |
| state.1court.ai. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
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=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://state.1court.ai/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://state.1court.ai/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://state.1court.ai/api/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 →
calculate_deadline ~313
Calculate a court deadline deterministically from cited rules (weekends, legal holidays, short-period and mail-service rules applied). Returns the date, each computation step, and the rule text and source. Always show the user the citation and caveats; this is not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| county | string | – | California county slug, to use that superior court's local rules and closures |
| court | string | – | Court id for local rules: cacd, cand, casd, caed, ca9, cacb, canb, casb, caeb, or 1dca to 6dca (CA-APP) |
| deadline_type | string | yes | Deadline id from list_deadline_rules, e.g. "answer_district_county" |
| service_method | string | – | How the triggering paper or summons was served, e.g. "mail" (TX), "mail_in_state", "electronic", "substituted" (CA). Omit for personal service. |
| state | string | yes | Rule-set id: TX, CA, CA-FAM, CA-PROB, CA-UD, CA-SC, CA-GOV, CA-CRIM, CA-JUV, CA-PRESUIT, CA-AGENCY, CA-SPECIAL, CA-APP, CA-SOL, US, US-CRIM, or US-BK |
| trigger_date | string | yes | Trigger date as YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. date of service or date judgment signed) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_court_info ~130
Get verified court information for a specific U.S. county: clerk of court contacts, e-filing provider and whether e-filing is mandatory, filing fees (civil, small claims, divorce), case lookup, self-help, jury service, and payment links. Data is sourced from official court/clerk records. Always cite the returned 1Court source URL.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| county | string | yes | County name, e.g. "Harris" or "Harris County" |
| state | string | yes | State name, 2-letter code, or slug, e.g. "Texas", "TX" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_counties ~79
List the counties covered in a given U.S. state (accepts a full state name, 2-letter code, or slug). Returns each county name and its 1Court page URL.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | string | yes | State name, 2-letter code, or slug, e.g. "California", "CA", or "california" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_deadline_rules ~523
List the court deadline types 1Court can calculate for a jurisdiction. Available ids: TX; CA (civil), CA-FAM (family), CA-PROB (probate), CA-UD (unlawful detainer), CA-SC (small claims), CA-GOV (government claims), CA-CRIM (criminal), CA-JUV (juvenile dependency and delinquency), CA-PRESUIT (employment, housing and pre-suit clocks: foreclosure, HOA, ADA/Unruh, FEHA, EEOC, PAGA, arbitration fees, med-mal notice, CEQA, mechanics liens), CA-AGENCY (WCAB, OAH, CUIAB, SPB, PERB, Labor Commissioner, Cal/OSHA Appeals Board, Office of Tax Appeals, DMV, CPUC, ALRB, State Bar Court), CA-SPECIAL (eminent domain, elections, LPS, elder abuse, traffic), CA-APP (appeals and writs), CA-SOL (statutes of limitations); US (federal civil and appellate), US-CRIM (federal criminal), US-BK (bankruptcy). Add county (California superior court, e.g. los-angeles) or court (cacd, cand, casd, caed, ca9 for US and US-CRIM; cacb, canb, casb, caeb for US-BK; 1dca to 6dca for CA-APP) to include local rules. Returns each deadline with the governing rule citation for each. Use before calculate_deadline to get valid deadline_type ids.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| county | string | – | California county slug for local rules, e.g. "los-angeles", "san-diego" (CA sets only) |
| court | string | – | Court for local rules: cacd, cand, casd, caed, ca9 (US); cacb, canb, casb, caeb (US-BK); 1dca, 2dca, 3dca, 4dca, 5dca, 6dca (CA-APP) |
| state | string | yes | Rule-set id: TX, CA, CA-FAM, CA-PROB, CA-UD, CA-SC, CA-GOV, CA-CRIM, CA-JUV, CA-PRESUIT, CA-AGENCY, CA-SPECIAL, CA-APP, CA-SOL, US, US-CRIM, or US-BK |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_states ~44
List all U.S. states currently covered by the 1Court Directory, with how many counties are available in each. Use this to discover coverage before looking up a specific county.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_courts ~75
Search the 1Court Directory by county or state name and get matching counties with their 1Court page URLs. Use when you are unsure of the exact county or state format.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | A county or state name, e.g. "Maricopa", "Cook County", or "Nevada" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the 1Court Directory MCP server?
1Court Directory is a hosted endpoint at https://state.1court.ai/api/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 · state.1court.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-1court-state-court-directory 'https://state.1court.ai/api/mcp'
What is the 1Court Directory MCP server?
1Court Directory is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.1court.state/court-directory. US county court directory: clerk, courthouse address, e-filing, filing fees, and case lookup. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://state.1court.ai/api/mcp).
Is the 1Court Directory MCP server safe to use?
1Court Directory scores 81 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 1Court Directory MCP server expose?
1Court Directory exposes 6 tools: list_deadline_rules, calculate_deadline, list_states, list_counties, get_court_info, search_courts. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,164 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the 1Court Directory MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to 1Court Directory without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the 1Court Directory MCP server still maintained?
1Court Directory is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 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 1Court Directory MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on 1Court Directory, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. 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.