Cloud DevOps MCP Server
NPM · CLOUD-DEVOPS-MCP-SERVER
Cloud DevOps analysis with guarded Git, infrastructure, cloud and observability operations.
Available components
Last scanned (17 hours ago)
Scores higher than 90% of npm servers
Category CI/CD and DevOps
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 Security99
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 15 of 56 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency100
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to alexcgodwin/cloud-devops-mcp-server). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 13 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2642 tokens (~220/item across 12 items; 12 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
- 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.
- 15 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Security disclosure: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 11 Oct 26 −12
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Security disclosure: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- 3 Oct 26 +26
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Known CVEs: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Dependency health: unverified → 0.90 ▲ functional
- 2 Oct 26 +4
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Known CVEs: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 6% → 100% ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- Dependency health: unverified → 0.90 ▲ functional
- Schema quality: fair → excellent functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.14.0 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.13.0 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.12.0 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.11.0 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.10.0 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.8.1 functional
- Package version: 0.4.0 → 0.7.0 functional
- 1 Oct 26 51
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 16 Oct 2026 · Analysed npm/cloud-devops-mcp-server@0.14.0
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 | npm |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | alexcgodwin/cloud-devops-mcp-server |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/alexcgodwin/cloud-devops-mcp-server/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/tags/v0.14.0 |
| Rekor log index | 3056217672 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:2cb8168e9d0428654c8fa3b4286e6d9b9cf1d5e5cbfe867dd9c4f8e9857c4119719ab64856457b151496de1badbf93ef5ce2a166db02c28c768466271 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Dependencies 56 packages
| Packages resolved | 56 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 15 |
| 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 →
assess_cloud_change_bundle Assess Cloud Change Bundle ~222
Correlate evidence from at least two domains (Terraform, IAM, Kubernetes, GitHub Actions) into one deployment-risk assessment and identify cross-domain change paths. Use domain-specific review tools when only one evidence domain is available. It analyzes caller-supplied artifacts only and does not query providers, clusters, GitHub, or deploy changes.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| changeName | string | yes | Name or identifier for the cloud change bundle being assessed. |
| environment | string | yes | Target deployment environment; production increases the consequence of correlated risk. |
| githubWorkflows | array | – | Optional GitHub Actions evidence domain with up to 10 workflows; combine with at least one other domain. |
| iamPolicies | array | – | Optional IAM evidence domain with up to 10 policies; combine with at least one other domain. |
| kubernetesWorkloads | array | – | Optional Kubernetes evidence domain with up to 10 workloads; combine with at least one other domain. |
| terraform | object | – | Optional Terraform evidence domain. Supply this plus at least one other domain for cross-domain assessment. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| baseRiskScore | number | yes | – |
| bundleRiskLevel | string | yes | – |
| bundleRiskScore | number | yes | – |
| changeName | string | yes | – |
| changePaths | array | yes | – |
| correlatedFindingCount | number | yes | – |
| correlatedFindings | array | yes | – |
| correlationAdjustment | number | yes | – |
| domainSummary | array | yes | – |
| environment | string | yes | – |
| environmentRiskAdjustment | number | yes | – |
| recommendedActions | array | yes | – |
| releaseGate | string | yes | – |
| suppliedDomains | array | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
assess_terraform_change Assess Terraform Change ~253
Evaluate Terraform/IaC release risk using plan evidence plus change-governance facts such as rollback, peer review and stateful impact. Use this for overall change/release decisions; for security-only inspection of a raw Terraform plan, use review_terraform_security. It analyzes supplied evidence only and never applies a plan, changes infrastructure, or writes Terraform state.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| changedResources | array | – | Infrastructure resource classes changed by the pull request or deployment. |
| hasPeerReview | boolean | – | Whether another qualified reviewer has reviewed the proposed change. |
| hasRollbackPlan | boolean | – | Whether a documented rollback or recovery path exists for this change. |
| hasTerraformPlan | boolean | – | Whether a Terraform plan artifact was generated and reviewed for this change. |
| includesIamChanges | boolean | – | Whether the change adds, removes or modifies IAM permissions, roles or policies. |
| includesPublicIngress | boolean | – | Whether the change introduces or modifies internet-accessible ingress or public network exposure. |
| modifiesStatefulResources | boolean | – | Whether databases, persistent volumes or other stateful resources are changed or replaced. |
| terraformPlanJson | string | – | Optional raw Terraform plan JSON. When supplied, the server derives resource classes and evidence. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| changedResources | array | yes | – |
| checklist | array | yes | – |
| evidence | array | yes | – |
| recommendedReleasePath | string | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
build_incident_runbook Build Incident Runbook ~150
Generate a practical incident-response runbook from a known service symptom, severity, environment and optional signals. Use this to structure response actions and evidence collection; do not use it to fetch or diagnose from live telemetry. It does not execute remediation or make changes to the service.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | string | yes | Environment where the symptom is occurring. |
| service | string | yes | Service or application name affected by the incident. |
| severity | string | yes | Incident severity used to scale response urgency and communications. |
| signals | array | – | Optional known alerts, metrics, logs or traces that should guide triage. |
| symptom | string | yes | Observed user-facing or operational symptom to build the runbook around. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| communication | array | yes | – |
| context | object | yes | – |
| firstFifteenMinutes | array | yes | – |
| mitigation | array | yes | – |
| rcaEvidence | array | yes | – |
| title | string | yes | – |
| triageSteps | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
estimate_slo_error_budget Estimate SLO Error Budget ~166
Calculate remaining SLO downtime budget and, when request counts are supplied, remaining failed-request budget for a fixed period. Use this as a deterministic budget calculator; do not use it to fetch monitoring data or forecast reliability. It performs no external calls and changes no service state.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| failedRequests | integer | – | Optional failed request count; provide together with requestVolume. |
| observedDowntimeMinutes | number | yes | Downtime already observed during the measurement period, in minutes. |
| periodDays | integer | yes | Length of the SLO measurement period in calendar days. |
| requestVolume | integer | – | Optional total request count for calculating a request-failure error budget. |
| sloTargetPercent | number | yes | Target service availability percentage for the measurement period, such as 99.9. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| allowedDowntimeMinutes | number | yes | – |
| allowedFailedRequests | number | – | – |
| budgetStatus | string | yes | – |
| failedRequests | number | – | – |
| observedDowntimeMinutes | number | yes | – |
| periodDays | number | yes | – |
| remainingDowntimeMinutes | number | yes | – |
| remainingFailedRequests | number | – | – |
| sloTargetPercent | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_cicd_pipeline Review CI/CD Pipeline ~224
Evaluate generic CI/CD production-readiness controls from structured pipeline facts, separating missing evidence from failed controls. Use this for platform-agnostic delivery process review; for raw GitHub Actions YAML, use review_github_actions_workflow. It is analysis-only and does not trigger builds, deployments, approvals, or pipeline changes.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| deploymentStrategy | string | yes | Primary deployment strategy used to release changes. |
| environments | array | yes | Deployment environments handled by the pipeline, for example dev, staging and production. |
| hasArtifactVersioning | boolean | – | Whether build artifacts are immutable and versioned for traceability. |
| hasAutomatedTests | boolean | – | Whether automated tests run as a release gate. |
| hasManualApprovalForProduction | boolean | – | Whether production deployment requires an explicit human approval gate. |
| hasRollback | boolean | – | Whether the pipeline has a defined rollback or recovery mechanism. |
| hasSecurityScan | boolean | – | Whether the pipeline performs automated security scanning before deployment. |
| pipelineName | string | yes | Human-readable name of the CI/CD pipeline being reviewed. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| deploymentStrategy | string | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| pipelineName | string | yes | – |
| readinessLevel | string | yes | – |
| readinessScore | number | yes | – |
| recommendedGates | array | yes | – |
| strengths | array | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_cloud_identity_policy Review Cloud Identity Policy ~165
Apply deterministic provider-specific identity policy packs to raw AWS IAM, Azure RBAC or GCP IAM policy documents. Use this for cross-cloud identity security analysis; use review_iam_policy when assessing AWS IAM from mixed structured facts or policy JSON. It analyzes supplied policy JSON only and does not call cloud APIs or change permissions.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | string | – | Optional deployment environment used to contextualize policy risk; defaults are handled by the policy pack. |
| policyJson | string | yes | Raw provider policy document in JSON form; AWS IAM, Azure role definition/assignment data, or GCP IAM policy. |
| policyName | string | yes | Name or identifier of the identity policy being reviewed. |
| provider | string | yes | Cloud provider whose identity policy syntax and policy pack should be applied. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| criticalFindings | number | yes | – |
| environment | string | yes | – |
| facts | array | yes | – |
| findingCount | number | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| highFindings | number | yes | – |
| mediumFindings | number | yes | – |
| policyName | string | yes | – |
| policyPack | string | yes | – |
| provider | string | yes | – |
| recommendedGate | string | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_github_actions_workflow Review GitHub Actions Workflow ~292
Evaluate GitHub Actions workflow security and deployment readiness from structured facts or raw workflow YAML, including triggers, action pinning, token permissions, caching, environment protection and concurrency. Use review_cicd_pipeline for generic non-GitHub delivery-process review. It examines supplied evidence only and does not call GitHub or dispatch workflows.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| deploysToProduction | boolean | – | Whether the workflow can deploy directly or indirectly to production. |
| hasConcurrencyControl | boolean | – | Whether concurrency settings prevent overlapping or conflicting workflow runs. |
| hasDependencyCaching | boolean | – | Whether dependency caching is configured for repeatable and efficient builds. |
| hasEnvironmentProtection | boolean | – | Whether protected GitHub environments or equivalent approval controls guard production deployments. |
| hasLeastPrivilegePermissions | boolean | – | Whether GITHUB_TOKEN permissions are explicitly restricted to least privilege. |
| hasSecretScanning | boolean | – | Whether the workflow or surrounding delivery process performs automated secret scanning. |
| triggers | array | – | Workflow trigger events when raw YAML is not supplied, such as push, pull_request or workflow_dispatch. |
| usesPinnedActions | boolean | – | Whether third-party actions are pinned to immutable commit SHAs. |
| workflowName | string | yes | Human-readable name of the GitHub Actions workflow being reviewed. |
| workflowYaml | string | – | Raw GitHub Actions workflow YAML. The server derives triggers, action pinning, token permissions, caching and concurrency. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| evidence | array | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| readinessLevel | string | yes | – |
| recommendedControls | array | yes | – |
| strengths | array | yes | – |
| triggers | array | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
| workflowName | string | yes | – |
| workflowScore | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_iam_policy Review IAM Policy ~264
Evaluate AWS IAM policy risk from structured facts or raw policy JSON, including wildcard scope, privilege-escalation actions and conditions. Use this for AWS IAM operational risk; for provider-specific AWS/Azure/GCP policy-pack checks, use review_cloud_identity_policy. It analyzes supplied policy data only and does not call AWS or modify IAM.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | array | – | Explicit allowed IAM actions when raw policy JSON is not supplied. |
| allowsPrivilegeEscalationActions | boolean | – | Whether the policy contains actions that can enable privilege escalation. |
| hasConditionBlocks | boolean | – | Whether policy statements include Condition constraints that narrow access. |
| hasWildcardActions | boolean | – | Whether the policy permits wildcard actions such as * or service:* patterns. |
| hasWildcardResources | boolean | – | Whether the policy grants permissions against wildcard resources. |
| policyJson | string | – | Raw AWS IAM policy JSON. When supplied, the server derives actions, resources, wildcard scope and privilege-escalation evidence. |
| policyName | string | yes | Name of the AWS IAM policy being assessed. |
| resources | array | – | Explicit IAM resource ARNs or patterns when raw policy JSON is not supplied. |
| usedByProduction | boolean | – | Whether the policy is attached to or used by production identities or workloads. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | array | yes | – |
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| evidence | array | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| policyName | string | yes | – |
| recommendedControls | array | yes | – |
| resources | array | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
| strengths | array | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_kubernetes_deployment Review Kubernetes Deployment ~301
Evaluate Kubernetes workload production readiness and reliability from structured facts or multi-document YAML, including probes, resources, replicas, disruption protection and exposure. Use this for deployability/readiness; for workload security hardening, use review_kubernetes_security. It examines supplied evidence only and does not connect to a Kubernetes cluster.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| exposesPublicService | boolean | – | Whether the workload is exposed through a public Service or ingress path. |
| hasLivenessProbe | boolean | – | Whether workload containers define liveness probes. |
| hasPodDisruptionBudget | boolean | – | Whether a PodDisruptionBudget protects workload availability during voluntary disruption. |
| hasReadinessProbe | boolean | – | Whether workload containers define readiness probes. |
| hasResourceLimits | boolean | – | Whether workload containers define CPU or memory limits. |
| hasResourceRequests | boolean | – | Whether workload containers define CPU or memory requests. |
| manifestYaml | string | – | Deployment, StatefulSet or DaemonSet YAML, optionally with Service, Ingress and PodDisruptionBudget documents. |
| namespace | string | – | Kubernetes namespace containing the workload. |
| replicas | integer | – | Configured replica count used to assess availability and redundancy. |
| runsAsRoot | boolean | – | Whether the workload is configured to run containers as root. |
| usesLatestTag | boolean | – | Whether any container image uses the mutable latest tag. |
| workloadName | string | – | Workload name when raw manifest YAML is not the only source of identity. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| evidence | array | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| namespace | string | yes | – |
| readinessLevel | string | yes | – |
| readinessScore | number | yes | – |
| recommendedControls | array | yes | – |
| strengths | array | yes | – |
| uncertainties | array | yes | – |
| workloadName | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_kubernetes_security Review Kubernetes Security ~115
Apply Kubernetes workload security rules to manifest YAML for privileged mode, host access, Linux capabilities, service accounts, seccomp, filesystem settings and network policy. Use this for security hardening; use review_kubernetes_deployment for reliability and production-readiness checks. It analyzes supplied YAML only and does not connect to a cluster.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | string | – | Optional target environment used to contextualize security findings. |
| manifestYaml | string | yes | Raw multi-document Kubernetes YAML containing workloads and related policy objects to evaluate for security hardening. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| criticalFindings | number | yes | – |
| environment | string | yes | – |
| findingCount | number | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| highFindings | number | yes | – |
| mediumFindings | number | yes | – |
| networkPolicyPresent | boolean | yes | – |
| policyPack | string | yes | – |
| publicExposureObjects | number | yes | – |
| recommendedGate | string | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
| workloadCount | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_software_supply_chain Review Software Supply Chain ~212
Correlate CycloneDX/SPDX SBOM quality with CI action pinning, Kubernetes image immutability, artifact signing and build provenance to assess software-supply-chain risk. Use this when an SBOM is available and supply-chain evidence needs to be evaluated together. It analyzes supplied artifacts only and does not call registries, CI systems, or clusters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactSigned | boolean | – | Whether released artifacts or images are cryptographically signed. |
| environment | string | – | Optional target environment used to contextualize supply-chain risk. |
| hasProvenance | boolean | – | Whether verifiable build provenance or attestation is produced for released artifacts. |
| kubernetesManifestYaml | string | – | Optional Kubernetes manifest YAML used to inspect runtime image immutability. |
| sbomJson | string | yes | CycloneDX or SPDX SBOM JSON used as the primary software-supply-chain evidence. |
| workflowYaml | string | – | Optional GitHub Actions workflow YAML used to inspect action pinning and build controls. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactSigned | boolean|null | yes | – |
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| componentCount | number | yes | – |
| correlationPaths | array | yes | – |
| criticalFindings | number | yes | – |
| environment | string | yes | – |
| findingCount | number | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| hasProvenance | boolean|null | yes | – |
| highFindings | number | yes | – |
| mediumFindings | number | yes | – |
| metadataCoverage | object | yes | – |
| mutableActionReferences | boolean | yes | – |
| mutableRuntimeImages | boolean | yes | – |
| policyPack | string | yes | – |
| recommendedGate | string | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
| sbomFormat | string | yes | – |
| sbomSpecVersion | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
review_terraform_security Review Terraform Security ~121
Inspect raw Terraform plan JSON for security-relevant changes such as destructive actions, public exposure, encryption gaps, deletion protection and IAM wildcard risk. Use this for Terraform security posture; use assess_terraform_change for broader release/change risk and governance. It parses the supplied plan only and does not execute Terraform or write state.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | string | – | Optional target environment used to contextualize the severity of findings. |
| terraformPlanJson | string | yes | Raw Terraform plan JSON, typically produced by terraform show -json, to inspect for security-relevant resource changes. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentConfidence | string | yes | – |
| changedResources | number | yes | – |
| criticalFindings | number | yes | – |
| destructiveChanges | number | yes | – |
| environment | string | yes | – |
| findingCount | number | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| highFindings | number | yes | – |
| mediumFindings | number | yes | – |
| policyPack | string | yes | – |
| recommendedGate | string | yes | – |
| replacements | number | yes | – |
| riskLevel | string | yes | – |
| riskScore | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Cloud DevOps MCP Server server?
Cloud DevOps MCP Server runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y cloud-devops-mcp-server. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · cloud-devops-mcp-server
claude mcp add alexcgodwin-cloud-devops-mcp-server -- npx -y cloud-devops-mcp-server
What is the Cloud DevOps MCP Server server?
Cloud DevOps MCP Server is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.alexcgodwin/cloud-devops-mcp-server. Cloud DevOps analysis with guarded Git, infrastructure, cloud and observability operations. This page covers its npm package (cloud-devops-mcp-server).
Is the Cloud DevOps MCP Server server safe to use?
Cloud DevOps MCP Server scores 87 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 16 October 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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 Cloud DevOps MCP Server server expose?
Cloud DevOps MCP Server exposes 12 tools: assess_terraform_change, assess_cloud_change_bundle, build_incident_runbook, review_cicd_pipeline, estimate_slo_error_budget, and 7 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,485 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Cloud DevOps MCP Server server still maintained?
Cloud DevOps MCP Server is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 16 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 Cloud DevOps MCP Server server under?
Cloud DevOps MCP 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.