io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server
OCI · GHCR.IO/ALEX-FEEL/MCP-CONTEXT-SERVER:2.2.2 · 2 COMPONENTS
An MCP server that provides persistent multimodal context storage for LLM agents.
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 32% of OCI servers
Category Memory and Knowledge
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 Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result. View diagnostics → Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency74
- Repository check failed: the declared repository URL redirects; it must resolve directly. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to alex-feel/mcp-context-server). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 222 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema quality not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to assess.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to compare.Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool definitions to assess.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool text to scan.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Protocol version not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we never saw its MCP handshake.Unverified
Unverified: 6 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (5)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
Checks we could not complete (9)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result.
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached. It names packages and versions but not whether each is deprecated, still maintained or linked to its source, so there is nothing we can fairly grade.
- Schema quality in Schema Quality & AI Usability (scores 0 for this)Schema quality not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to assess.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to compare.
- Tool coverage in Tool Coverage (scores 0 for this)Tool coverage not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool definitions to assess.
- Tool safety in Tool Safety (scores 0 for this)Tool safety not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool text to scan.
- Capabilities in Capabilities (scores 0 for this)Protocol version not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we never saw its MCP handshake.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
- Security disclosure: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 3 Nov 26 −1
- Security disclosure: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- 25 Oct 26 −5
- Source repository: pass → fail ▼ security
- 28 Sept 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 Sept 26 0
- Provenance: fail → pass ▲ security
- The attested source repository moved: alex-feel/mcp-context-server security
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 8 Sept 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 7 Sept 26 0
- Security disclosure: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- 2 Sept 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → pass ▲ 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 6 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/alex-feel/mcp-context-server:2.2.2
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 | oci |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | OCI referrers API |
| Source repo | alex-feel/mcp-context-server |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/alex-feel/mcp-context-server/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/tags/v2.2.2 |
| Rekor log index | 1191553066 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:e7b5f3df26c36fd319688ea96a604b9680eacebbdfe38f0feeffd61c1eacabff |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 162 ungraded findings
From the publisher's SBOM, not graded. These advisories match packages listed in the SBOM the publisher attached to this image. A publisher naming a vulnerable package in their own image is credible, so we show them. Nothing verifies that SBOM, though, so the Known CVEs signal does not grade the image from it.
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-5p39-cfhj-2xmp | CVE-2026-64847 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-82r6-8w77-94w6 | CVE-2026-63374 | critical | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4024 | CVE-2026-64847 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4025 | CVE-2026-63374 | none | yes | |
| GHSA-6v38-4h7w-rj9h | CVE-2026-96760 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-7vr2-2fgp-9w7p | CVE-2026-114615 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-8m4g-j4wp-wgcg | CVE-2026-114616 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-c5mf-xmp2-59rc | CVE-2026-114617 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-c73q-w75p-j82v | CVE-2026-116672 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-fch4-3c6x-j4gc | CVE-2026-114618 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-jj7h-c3hg-m23x | CVE-2026-114614 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-jj8c-mmj3-mmgv | CVE-2026-41425 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-q686-2qmg-hqc7 | CVE-2026-114619 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-r95x-qfjj-fjj2 | CVE-2026-44681 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-w8p2-r796-3vmq | CVE-2026-41479 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-x4rv-c3wx-4cr8 | CVE-2026-114620 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-188 | CVE-2026-44681 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-2119 | CVE-2026-41479 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-25 | CVE-2026-41425 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4354 | CVE-2026-114614 | low | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4355 | CVE-2026-114615 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4356 | CVE-2026-114616 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4357 | CVE-2026-114617 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4358 | CVE-2026-114618 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4359 | CVE-2026-114619 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4360 | CVE-2026-114620 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 | critical | yes | ||
| PYSEC-2026-4320 | none | yes | ||
| GHSA-537c-gmf6-5ccf | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes | |
| GHSA-g6cj-pr64-35w5 | CVE-2026-69247 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-jwv3-5hgf-82ww | CVE-2026-69249 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-m2h6-j472-rp4c | CVE-2026-69248 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-m959-cc7f-wv43 | CVE-2026-34073 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-p423-j2cm-9vmq | CVE-2026-39892 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-35 | CVE-2026-34073 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-3552 | CVE-2026-69247 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-3553 | CVE-2026-69249 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-3554 | CVE-2026-69248 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-36 | CVE-2026-39892 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-45c3-73f7-pv4m | CVE-2026-114605 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-7xgj-8392-5q4r | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes | |
| GHSA-m8x7-r2rg-vh5g | CVE-2025-64340 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-rww4-4w9c-7733 | CVE-2026-27124 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-vv7q-7jx5-f767 | CVE-2026-32871 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-2475 | CVE-2025-64340 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-2476 | CVE-2026-27124 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-338 | CVE-2026-32871 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-69hj-f68j-2879 | CVE-2026-112909 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-8mx5-7m5m-r77g | CVE-2026-112910 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-27vj-qcqg-25rc | CVE-2026-104851 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
Showing 50 of 162 vulnerabilities.
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
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 →
Tools for package channels are captured by running the package in an isolated sandbox. Our sandbox could not run this package, so no tool list has been captured. That is a gap on our side, not a finding about the package.
Add this component to your MCP client. Where a client-specific snippet is available, pick your client below and copy it straight into your config; otherwise use the connection detail shown.
oci · ghcr.io/alex-feel/mcp-context-server:2.2.2
What is the io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server server?
io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server. An MCP server that provides persistent multimodal context storage for LLM agents. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/alex-feel/mcp-context-server:2.2.2).
Is the io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server server safe to use?
io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server scores 15 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. The SBOM its publisher attached lists packages with 162 known advisories as of 6 November 2026. We do not grade that SBOM, as nothing verifies it. 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.
Is the io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server server still maintained?
io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 November 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 io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server server under?
io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server server?
VerifyMCP ran 5 checks on io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 1 more. 9 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about io.github.alex-feel/mcp-context-server: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 5 more. 6 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a container image, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.