Cejel
OCI · GHCR.IO/BARGLABS/CEJEL
Offline deterministic engineering-trust certificates for repositories, with no telemetry.
Available components
Last scanned (18 hours ago)
Scores higher than 99% of OCI servers
Category Testing and QA
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 Security8
- 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
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects @modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.29.0, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to BargLabs/cejel). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (AGPL-3.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 0 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability84
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 268 tokens (~89/item across 3 items; 1 tools + 2 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 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
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.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.63 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Package version: sha256:71022cd23502367c132622bdd92966825c751aa50fb9e6294fdd49928178ac88 → sha256:12372dededed8fbdbe6d1061e6792e3d83e51d0640899dfbc1f8189f8ea67daa functional
- 21 Oct 26 +1
- CVE-2026-111771 affects this package: high ▼ security
- CVE-2026-111768 affects this package: high ▼ security
- CVE-2026-111769 affects this package: high ▼ security
- CVE-2026-111767 affects this package: high ▼ security
- 19 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.53 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Package version: sha256:9c34228f628181de3ee6d9bd6f6b97edcae7ae8a90ada8fc5f764fc3eb29ca21 → sha256:71022cd23502367c132622bdd92966825c751aa50fb9e6294fdd49928178ac88 functional
- 16 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.
- 15 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.40 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Package version: sha256:64af5535487aa9600835514c2d79b0c244cd9c1941f91a593367fd36cf87a1a8 → sha256:9c34228f628181de3ee6d9bd6f6b97edcae7ae8a90ada8fc5f764fc3eb29ca21 functional
- Package version: sha256:64af5535487aa9600835514c2d79b0c244cd9c1941f91a593367fd36cf87a1a8 → sha256:41ecb138d0e6e73eb2e629d25d2e28d0eab54b19ed047a09cf2438cf675b3320 functional
- 14 Oct 26 +39
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.40 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- Package version: sha256:e22864891b07fca25d0b6ea6ba70d6522427675e6171de9a42b95199f5e9cd44 → sha256:64af5535487aa9600835514c2d79b0c244cd9c1941f91a593367fd36cf87a1a8 functional
- 13 Oct 26 0
- Package version: sha256:a633138b59ee1f3a191ca149484d528c1268fd300a98a76dd07169effa330f94 → sha256:64af5535487aa9600835514c2d79b0c244cd9c1941f91a593367fd36cf87a1a8 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 23 Oct 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/barglabs/cejel@sha256:12372dededed8fbdbe6d1061e6792e3d83e51d0640899dfbc1f8189f8ea67daa
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 | BargLabs/cejel |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/BargLabs/cejel/.github/workflows/publish-distribution.yml@refs/tags/v0.6.8 |
| Rekor log index | 3386970522 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:12372dededed8fbdbe6d1061e6792e3d83e51d0640899dfbc1f8189f8ea67daa |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 13 findings
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-22jm-h49p-29qw | CVE-2026-111767 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-46jr-4wx8-v453 | CVE-2026-111768 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-6prh-2h8m-c8cw | CVE-2026-111769 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-6qxp-vccf-f47h | CVE-2026-104850 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-rvq5-wwqv-78pq | CVE-2026-111771 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-5jgf-p345-68v8 | CVE-2026-75931 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-7p8r-x3mc-p8w7 | CVE-2026-18446 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-f65p-4m7j-42xc | CVE-2026-75975 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-fph4-wmhf-6fwf | CVE-2026-75899 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-hrr3-gc8f-f4qj | CVE-2026-86472 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-jqff-g426-hqxp | CVE-2026-76172 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3 | CVE-2026-84292 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-v2hh-gcrm-f6hx | CVE-2026-16221 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N | yes |
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 →
scan Scan repository trust ~227
Score a repository's engineering-trust signals (tests, secrets, isolation, claim-vs-reality, CI discipline) with the @cejel/cejel trust-certificate scan — the exact same offline, deterministic scoring as running the @cejel/cejel CLI on the path. Returns the trust cert as JSON: overall + code/process sub-scores (0-4) for a scored repository, or null scores with an abstention reason when Cejel establishes structural source absence or zero measurable free-core criteria; plus the verdict and top findings. No network, no telemetry, no signup. After a scan, the full HTML certificate and SVG badge are readable as the resources cejel-cejel://last-scan/certificate.html and cejel-cejel://last-scan/badge.svg.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | string | – | summary (default): compact cert digest — scores, verdict, top findings. json: the full structured report, identical to the CLI's report.json. |
| path | string | yes | Path to the repository to score (absolute, or relative to the server CWD) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Cejel MCP server?
Cejel runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/barglabs/cejel@sha256:12372dededed8fbdbe6d1061e6792e3d83e51d0640899dfbc1f8189f8ea67daa. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/barglabs/cejel
claude mcp add barglabs-cejel -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/barglabs/cejel@sha256:12372dededed8fbdbe6d1061e6792e3d83e51d0640899dfbc1f8189f8ea67daa
What is the Cejel MCP server?
Cejel is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.BargLabs/cejel. Offline deterministic engineering-trust certificates for repositories, with no telemetry. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/barglabs/cejel).
Is the Cejel MCP server safe to use?
Cejel scores 65 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 13 known advisories against it as of 23 October 2026. 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 Cejel MCP server expose?
Cejel exposes 1 tool: scan. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 227 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Cejel MCP server still maintained?
Cejel is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 23 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 Cejel MCP server under?
Cejel declares the AGPL-3.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.