GBU Compliance
REMOTE · GBU-COMPLIANCE.ROWB.APP
German Gefaehrdungsbeurteilung: assess against the ArbSchG s5(3) checklist and build the s6 record.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 46% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 18 Oct 2026.
Category Health and Science
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 Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 4 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, 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
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability79
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 290 tokens (~72/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management40
- Stability observed for 12 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage95
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 86% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
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 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 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 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 10 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 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.
- 7 Oct 26 59
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 18 Oct 2026 · Probed https://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=rowb.app | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 5 Oct 2026 | 3 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 5f0b07d4d389c13d0e661a47fd2682d9 |
| SANs: rowb.app, gbu-compliance.rowb.app, *.gbu-compliance.rowb.app | ||||||
| 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 gbu-compliance.rowb.app. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| app. | present | 23684 | 8 | Verified |
| rowb.app. | 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://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
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_workplace ~122
Assess a workplace against the section 5(3) hazard checklist. Returns risk level per hazard, the gaps that are not low, and the next review date. Deterministic: same input gives the same output.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| employees | integer | – | Number of employees (optional, stored in the record). |
| hazards | array | yes | Hazard IDs from list_hazards, e.g. ["H01","H02","H12"]. |
| sector | string | – | Free-text sector label, e.g. "Metallbau" or "Praxis". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
documentation ~74
Build the section 6 ArbSchG documentation record for an assessment: result, measures and the review result field. Returns the three fields section 6 requires.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| employer | string | – | Employer name to print on the record. |
| hazards | array | yes | Hazard IDs from list_hazards. |
| sector | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_hazards ~51
List the hazard checklist used for a Gefährdungsbeurteilung, grouped by the six categories of ArbSchG §5(3). Read this first, then pick IDs for assess_workplace.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
review_due ~43
Return the next review date for a risk level (high 180 days, medium 365, low 730).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| risk | string | yes | high, medium or low |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the GBU Compliance MCP server?
GBU Compliance is a hosted endpoint at https://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/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 · gbu-compliance.rowb.app
claude mcp add --transport http app-rowb-gbu-compliance-assessment 'https://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/mcp'
What is the GBU Compliance MCP server?
GBU Compliance is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as app.rowb.gbu-compliance/assessment. German Gefaehrdungsbeurteilung: assess against the ArbSchG s5(3) checklist and build the s6 record. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://gbu-compliance.rowb.app/mcp).
Is the GBU Compliance MCP server safe to use?
GBU Compliance scores 64 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 GBU Compliance MCP server expose?
GBU Compliance exposes 4 tools: list_hazards, assess_workplace, documentation, review_due. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 290 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the GBU Compliance MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to GBU Compliance without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the GBU Compliance MCP server still maintained?
GBU Compliance is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 18 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.