Rams
REMOTE · WORKER.RAMS.AI · SCANNED SEP 20
Design review for UI code: 291 rules, scored 0-100 with fixes and git-applyable patches.
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 Security94
- 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 is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- The authorisation server offers only Dynamic Client Registration (RFC 7591), which MCP 2026-07-28 deprecated in favour of Client ID Metadata Documents. View diagnostics → Partial
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability72
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 817 tokens (~204/item across 4 items; 4 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 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
- Structured output schemas are declared (50% 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 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 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
How do I install the Rams MCP server?
Rams is a hosted endpoint at https://worker.rams.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 · worker.rams.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-rams-rams 'https://worker.rams.ai/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"ai-rams-rams": {
"url": "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"ai-rams-rams": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.ai-rams-rams] url = "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"ai-rams-rams": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add ai-rams-rams --url 'https://worker.rams.ai/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
ai-rams-rams:
url: "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"ai-rams-rams": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://worker.rams.ai/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add ai-rams-rams -t streamable-http -u 'https://worker.rams.ai/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"ai-rams-rams": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://worker.rams.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.
- 20 Sept 26 0
- Schema quality: 182 → 204 ▼ functional
- “quick_review” added an optional parameter “via” cosmetic
- “review_files” added an optional parameter “via” cosmetic
- 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
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 24 Aug 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 19 Aug 26 0
- Authorization: fail → pass ▲ security
- First check of Authorization: partial security
- 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
- 10 Aug 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool coverage: 67% → 50% ▼ functional
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- New tool “quick_review” functional
- 9 Aug 26 0
- Tool “review_files” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
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://worker.rams.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=worker.rams.ai | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 18 Sept 2026 | 17 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6a5ada74298098ed8c2514c353f4123a788 |
| SANs: worker.rams.ai | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of worker.rams.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 3799 | 8 | Verified |
| rams.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://worker.rams.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"
Bearer resource_metadata="https://worker.rams.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self';base-uri 'self';font-src 'self' https: data:;form-action 'self';frame-ancestors 'self';img-src 'self' data:;object-src 'none';script-src 'self';script-src-attr 'none';style-src 'self' https: 'unsafe-inline';upgrade-insecure-requests |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Protected resource metadata
| Document | https://worker.rams.ai/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp |
|---|---|
| Retrieved | Yes |
| Resource | https://worker.rams.ai/mcp |
| Authorisation server | https://worker.rams.ai |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://worker.rams.ai/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://worker.rams.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://worker.rams.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 →
quick_review Rams quick check ~219
Fast design check over the UI files you just changed. Returns issues with severity, category and file:line, in about 10 seconds. Cheap: five quick checks cost one review credit, so a whole editing session spends a fraction of one review. Use this one CONSTANTLY: after writing or editing a component, before committing, whenever you want to know if what you just wrote is sound. You do not need to ask the user first. It returns no score and no ready-made patch: fix the issues yourself in the files you already have open. When the user wants a score to keep, a patch to apply, or a review to quote, use review_files instead.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | Short label, e.g. the component or feature name |
| files | array | yes | The UI files you just changed |
| via | string | – | Set to "rules" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
review_files Rams design review ~262
Run a Rams design review over UI files (React, Vue, Svelte, CSS). Returns a 0-100 score (criticals cap it: one caps at 59, two at 49, three or more at 39), issues with severity, category, file:line, and concrete fixes. Call it whenever UI code has been written or changed: before committing, when the user asks how the design looks, or to check your own work after editing a component. Reviewing the handful of files you just touched is the normal case — it is cheap, and you do not need to ask permission first. Only a whole-codebase audit (dozens of files across many batches) is worth checking with the user, since it consumes the calling agent's context and a large share of their model allowance; prefer the highest-traffic screens in that case.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | Short label for this review, e.g. the feature or branch name |
| files | array | yes | UI files to review (up to 20) |
| via | string | – | Set to "rules" when this call is made because of a standing instruction in a rules file (e.g. CLAUDE.md). Omit when a person asked for the review. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| detectedCounts | object | yes | – |
| direction | string | – | What the change is trying to be — judgment before findings |
| issues | array | yes | – |
| reviewsLimit | number|null | yes | null = unlimited (Team overage applies instead) |
| reviewsUsed | number | yes | – |
| score | number | yes | 0-100; confirmed criticals cap it — one at 59, two at 49, three or more at 39 |
| summary | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
usage Rams review quota ~44
Check how many Rams reviews this workspace has used and has left (rolling 30 days, shared between the GitHub App and MCP). Free to call — does not consume a review.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_fixes Verify Rams fixes landed ~84
Re-check previous review_files findings against updated file contents. Returns fixed vs still-present per finding. Much cheaper and faster than a full re-review; does NOT consume review quota. Use after applying fixes.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | array | yes | The updated UI files (same paths as the original review) |
| issues | array | yes | The findings to verify, as returned by review_files |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| allClear | boolean | yes | true when nothing remains, including no remaining criticals |
| fixed | array | yes | – |
| present | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
What is the Rams MCP server?
Rams is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.rams/rams. Design review for UI code: 291 rules, scored 0-100 with fixes and git-applyable patches. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://worker.rams.ai/mcp).
Is the Rams MCP server safe to use?
Rams scores 93 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 Rams MCP server expose?
Rams exposes 4 tools: usage, review_files, quick_review, verify_fixes. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 609 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Rams MCP server require authentication?
Yes. Rams 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 Rams MCP server still maintained?
Rams 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.