keygrant
PYPI · KEYGRANT
Run commands with API keys injected per call — values never enter model context.
Available components
Last scanned (10 hours ago)
Scores higher than 61% of PyPI servers
Category Security
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 Security50
- Malware scan not yet available for this package.Unverified
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs setuptools.build_meta at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- No production dependencies, so there is no dependency health to assess. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency45
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (Apache-2.0).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
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 217 tokens (~108/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management13
- Stability observed for 4 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 Safety75
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- 0 of 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation; "exec_with_secrets" implies "exec" and declares no destructiveHint at all, which the MCP spec reads as destructive by default. See how to fix → Fail
- An AI judge read all 2 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.
- 18 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 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.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → 0.10 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.1.6 → 0.1.9 functional
- 14 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- First check of Judged manipulation: pass security
- Stability: Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window). security
- MCP protocol: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- First check of Schema quality: fail functional
- First check of Schema quality: excellent functional
- First check of Destructive annotations: 0 functional
- First check of Schema quality: pass functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 100 functional
- 12 Oct 26 39
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 · Analysed pypi/keygrant@0.1.9
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | setuptools.build_meta |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 0 packages
| Packages resolved | 0 |
|---|---|
| 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 →
exec_with_secrets ~174
Run a shell command with the named secrets injected as environment variables (reference them as %NAME% / $env:NAME / $NAME inside the command). The user must approve access via a native dialog that shows the full command; approval covers that exact command string for 15 minutes, so reuse the identical command for retries. Commands over 2000 characters are refused: put long logic in a script. A denial is final — never retry it. Output is returned with any plaintext secret values redacted. This is the ONLY way to use a secret; values never appear in conversation context.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | string | yes | Shell command to run (executed via cmd /c on Windows). |
| cwd | string | – | Optional working directory. |
| secrets | array | yes | Names of vault secrets to inject as env vars. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_secrets ~43
List the names and descriptions of secrets available in the local vault. Values are never returned. Use exec_with_secrets to run a command that needs one of these secrets.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the keygrant MCP server?
keygrant runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx keygrant. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · keygrant
claude mcp add bazingaedward-keygrant -- uvx keygrant
What is the keygrant MCP server?
keygrant is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.bazingaedward/keygrant. Run commands with API keys injected per call, values never enter model context. This page covers its PyPI package (keygrant).
Is the keygrant MCP server safe to use?
keygrant scores 56 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 18 October 2026. 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 keygrant MCP server expose?
keygrant exposes 2 tools: list_secrets, exec_with_secrets. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 217 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the keygrant MCP server still maintained?
keygrant 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.
What licence is the keygrant MCP server under?
keygrant declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.