MarketCode
REMOTE · MCP.MARKETCODE.AI
UK property intelligence with evidence behind the numbers.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 57% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Maps and Location
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 Security81
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, advertised via RFC 9728 protected-resource metadata. Discovery is public, which costs nothing: no tool can be invoked without a token. View diagnostics → Pass
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 404, 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
- The authorisation server supports Client ID Metadata Documents, the current MCP client-registration mechanism. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability70
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 26299 tokens (~248/item across 106 items; 106 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 Management23
- Stability observed for 7 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage72
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 1% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety50
- Injection-marker check failed: the description of tool "sourcing_strategies" contains an instruction to conceal the call from the user, the text "without telling the user", at byte 701 of that field. See how to fix → Fail
- We read all 106 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 107 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
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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
- Tool “planning_applications” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- New tool “constraints_for_geometry” functional
- New tool “grid_capacity” functional
- New tool “lpa_profile” functional
- New tool “planning_appeals” functional
- New tool “policy_context” functional
- New tool “site_access” functional
- New tool “strategic_sites” functional
- Tool “planning_applications” changed its title: Planning authority for a location → Planning applications near a location (London) cosmetic
- 2 Nov 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.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 0
- Tool “query_semantic” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 29 Oct 26 68
First indexed and scored.
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://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=marketcode.ai | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 11 Sept 2026 | 10 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | d723b7fa16399c1e0e394371e1271a98 |
| SANs: marketcode.ai, *.marketcode.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 mcp.marketcode.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| marketcode.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Enforced and verified
The endpoint asked for a token and published valid RFC 9728 metadata describing how to get one.
| Result | Enforced and verified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
WWW-Authenticate challenge Bearer resource_metadata="https://api.marketcode.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource", scope="property:read"
Bearer resource_metadata="https://api.marketcode.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource", scope="property:read"Protected resource metadata
| Document | https://api.marketcode.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource |
|---|---|
| Retrieved | Yes |
| Resource | https://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp |
| Authorisation server | https://api.marketcode.ai |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp | Inconclusive | 404 |
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 →
transactions_by_uprn Registered sales for a property ~80
All HMLR Price Paid records joined to this UPRN, newest first. England & Wales only. Free. Keyed on a UPRN, not an address: call `address_autocomplete` (free) to narrow, then `address_resolve` to get one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| uprn | integer | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
valuation_accuracy Our valuation error, forward-validated monthly ~180
How accurate our valuations have been, measured the only way that cannot leak: each month, every registered sale the model had ALREADY valued is compared with the price actually paid — MdAPE (median absolute percentage error), PPE20 (share within 20%) and n, per asset class and model version. Until the first vintage lands in October 2026 the answer is `status: no_rows_yet` with the metric definitions: an empty table, not a zero error. Filters: `asset_class` (Residential | Commercial | Mixed-Use), `model_version` (e.g. gbm-h3-v4), `since` (YYYY-MM). UK only. Free.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_class | – | – | – |
| model_version | – | – | – |
| since | – | – | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
valuation_comparables Comparable sales near the property, scored ~370
Comparable completed sales for a valuation, beyond the property's own building: Land Registry sales of the nearest units (within 1 km, the 60 months before `as_of`), widening from 250 m and 12 months until at least 6 qualify. A sale qualifies when it is the same broad type (flats with flats, houses with houses, from the type recorded at the sale), within 0.67-1.5x the subject's floor area when both are known, category A and not an anomaly. Category B, anomalous, new-build and out-of-band sales are returned with `flags`, never dropped: review contrary sales rather than ignoring them. Each sale: price, date, UPRN, address, distance, floor area, bedrooms, tenure, `qualifies`, `similarity` (score with distance, recency, size, type and bedrooms components). Floor area and bedrooms are the unit's CURRENT record, not as at the sale (`attributes_after_sale` flags a record dated after it). `selection` names the step used; `provenance` lists every step tried and the data watermark. Time-adjust prices with the published index before use. `as_of` YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD (default today); `limit` 1-60. UK only. Costs 10 credits (10p). Keyed on a UPRN, not an address: call `address_autocomplete` (free) to narrow, then `address_resolve` to get one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | – | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| uprn | integer | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
valuation_estimate Automated valuation estimate ~107
Automated value estimate for a property: a point value plus a range. Returns 404 when we hold no valuation for the UPRN — most often because the unit has no floor area on record, which the model requires. UK only. Free. Keyed on a UPRN, not an address: call `address_autocomplete` (free) to narrow, then `address_resolve` to get one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| uprn | integer | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
valuation_full Full valuation with back-series ~164
Full valuation block for a property: the value and its range, a monthly back-series (the value scaled by the local £/m² index, so it terminates at the headline figure by construction), a rental estimate where the district benchmark supports one, and a `trust_score` scoring the evidence behind the number — index sample size, floor-area provenance, model confidence. Use `valuation_estimate` if you only need the number; this is materially more expensive. UK only. Free. Keyed on a UPRN, not an address: call `address_autocomplete` (free) to narrow, then `address_resolve` to get one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| uprn | integer | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
valuation_rent_comparables Comparable lets near the property and the rent they indicate ~643
Comparable lets for a market rent, and the rent they indicate. ASKING rents from portal adverts: no achieved rents exist, so say "asking" when you quote them. Reads the rent adverts of the nearest units (within 1 km, last seen in the 24 months before `as_of`), widening from 250 m and 6 months until 4 effective comparables qualify. A let qualifies when it is the same type family (flats with flats, houses with houses; house shares and rooms never), the same bedrooms (+/- 1 only when exact cannot reach the minimum), and within 0.67-1.5x the subject's floor area when both are known; others come back with `flags`. Each let: address, distance, beds, floor area, first/last seen, `outcome` (let_agreed | withdrawn | live | unknown), first and last asking rent, reductions, days on market, the rent carried to the last complete month on the asking-rent index (`carried_rent_pcm`), `adjusted_rent_pcm` (equal to it while size adjustment is off) and its `weight` (distance, recency, size, beds, type; let agreed counts more, an unlet reduced asking rent less). `estimate`: central_pcm (weighted median, an achievable ASKING rent), low_pcm/high_pcm (80% range; back-tested on let-agreed adverts: median miss 10%, 80% coverage), n_effective, and asking_to_achieved_ratio (ONS paid rents over the local asking median for the bedroom band, capped 0.85-1.05, 1.0 with ratio_source `none` when no cell) published BESIDE the estimate, not applied. `time_on_market_days`: median days to let agreed for the comparable lets. The property's own adverts are never comparables; its latest is `subject_advert`. `status` ok | thin | no_comparables | location_unavailable. PASS `beds`, `property_type` (flat | terraced | semi-detached | detached | bungalow) and `floor_area_m2` whenever you have established them: the unit record's bedrooms are imputed for most properties, and a wrong bedroom count doub…
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | – | – | – |
| beds | – | – | – |
| floor_area_m2 | – | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| property_type | – | – | – |
| uprn | integer | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the MarketCode MCP server?
MarketCode is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.marketcode.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 · mcp.marketcode.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-marketcode-marketcode 'https://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp'
What is the MarketCode MCP server?
MarketCode is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.marketcode/marketcode. UK property intelligence with evidence behind the numbers. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.marketcode.ai/mcp).
Is the MarketCode MCP server safe to use?
MarketCode scores 71 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 MarketCode MCP server expose?
MarketCode exposes 106 tools: entity_search_capabilities, lookup_entities, ask_question, search_entities, search_summary, and 101 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 25,845 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the MarketCode MCP server require authentication?
Yes. MarketCode 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 MarketCode MCP server still maintained?
MarketCode 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.