PropertyLabs
REMOTE · PROPERTYLABS.ORG · SCANNED SEP 21
Public building permits, property assessments, parcels and development intelligence.
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 Security74
- 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. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability81
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 364 tokens (~121/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- 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 (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 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 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 PropertyLabs MCP server?
PropertyLabs is a hosted endpoint at https://propertylabs.org/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 · propertylabs.org
claude mcp add --transport http algofalgo-propertylabs 'https://propertylabs.org/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"algofalgo-propertylabs": {
"url": "https://propertylabs.org/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"algofalgo-propertylabs": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://propertylabs.org/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.algofalgo-propertylabs] url = "https://propertylabs.org/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"algofalgo-propertylabs": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://propertylabs.org/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add algofalgo-propertylabs --url 'https://propertylabs.org/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
algofalgo-propertylabs:
url: "https://propertylabs.org/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"algofalgo-propertylabs": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://propertylabs.org/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add algofalgo-propertylabs -t streamable-http -u 'https://propertylabs.org/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"algofalgo-propertylabs": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://propertylabs.org/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.
- 14 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 13 Sept 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.
- 11 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 9 Sept 26 +1
- HSTS header: unverified → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Endpoint reachability: unreachable → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.83 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 8 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- Stability: 0.77 → unverified ▼ security
- HSTS header: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 7 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 6 Sept 26 0
- HSTS header: unverified → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Endpoint reachability: unreachable → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.73 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 5 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- HSTS header: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.67 → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ 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 21 Sept 2026 · Probed https://propertylabs.org/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=propertylabs.org | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 2 Sept 2026 | 1 Dec 2026 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | 50d1398f0499c9ab7262bbd49da78d21de3 |
| SANs: propertylabs.org | ||||||
| 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 insecure
Validation of propertylabs.org. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| org. | present | 26974 | 8 | Verified |
| propertylabs.org. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://propertylabs.org/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://propertylabs.org/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 302 | https://propertylabs.org/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 →
get_public_permit Get a public PropertyLabs permit record ~101
Retrieve a permit using the numeric PropertyLabs canonical permit ID and city slug. Use this for a permit already referenced by a public PropertyLabs /permit/{city}/{id} URL. Returns only fields allowed on the public permit page; applicant and contractor identities remain gated.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| canonical_id | string | yes | Numeric PropertyLabs canonical permit ID from a public PropertyLabs permit URL. |
| city | string | yes | Required PropertyLabs city slug from the public permit URL. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_address_permits Search permits for a public address ~114
Look up the public PropertyLabs permit history for a specific civic address in a specific city. Use this for address-level construction history and activity. This follows the same public field boundary as PropertyLabs address pages and does not return applicant names, contractor names or permit numbers.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Specific civic address, for example 8882 170 Street NW. |
| city | string | yes | Required PropertyLabs city slug, for example 'calgary', 'edmonton', 'toronto' or 'vancouver'. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_company_activity Get a public company activity snapshot ~104
Get an aggregate, city-scoped sample of permit activity matching a developer, applicant, builder or contractor name. Only applicant/developer/contractor party-field matches are counted. Anonymous results are aggregate only and never return company-matched project addresses, permit numbers, coordinates or raw records.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | string | yes | Required PropertyLabs city slug. Company activity is never queried across the full archive anonymously. |
| company | string | yes | Developer, applicant, builder or contractor name. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
What is the PropertyLabs MCP server?
PropertyLabs is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.AlgoFalgo/propertylabs. Public building permits, property assessments, parcels and development intelligence. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://propertylabs.org/mcp).
Is the PropertyLabs MCP server safe to use?
PropertyLabs scores 86 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 PropertyLabs MCP server expose?
PropertyLabs exposes 3 tools: search_address_permits, get_public_permit, search_company_activity. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 319 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the PropertyLabs MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to PropertyLabs without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the PropertyLabs MCP server still maintained?
PropertyLabs is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 21 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.