Financial Evidence
OCI · GHCR.IO/BEEPBOOP2025/FINANCIAL-EVIDENCE-SKILLS · 3 COMPONENTS
Read-only public financial evidence from LiquiLens, Undertow, Seiche and Palimpsest.
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 89% of OCI servers
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security0
- 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
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this image's dependency list comes from an SBOM its publisher attached, which nothing verifies, so we will not report it as a clean result. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 & Transparency48
- 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 (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 8 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 192 tokens (~48/item across 4 items; 3 tools + 1 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 Coverage67
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
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 5 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
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
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.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 0.1.15 → 0.1.16 functional
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
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 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/beepboop2025/financial-evidence-skills@0.1.16
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 16 ungraded findings
From the publisher's SBOM, not graded. These advisories match packages listed in the SBOM the publisher attached to this image. A publisher naming a vulnerable package in their own image is credible, so we show them. Nothing verifies that SBOM, though, so the Known CVEs signal does not grade the image from it.
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-6q48-6c7w-9gw2 | critical | yes | ||
| PYSEC-2026-4320 | none | yes | ||
| GHSA-6v7p-g79w-8964 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-j586-36cw-2gc2 | CVE-2026-114613 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-3625 | CVE-2026-57585 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-5rjg-fvgr-3xxf | CVE-2025-47273 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-h35f-9h28-mq5c | CVE-2026-59890 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-xmj3-9gf7-h52w | low | yes | ||
| PYSEC-2025-49 | CVE-2025-47273 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-3447 | CVE-2026-59890 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N | yes |
| GHSA-8988-9cw3-xx77 | CVE-2026-97687 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-gh4c-6fx4-qh6g | CVE-2026-97688 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-vxq7-64xx-v4gw | CVE-2026-97689 | high | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4175 | CVE-2026-97687 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4176 | CVE-2026-97688 | none | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4177 | CVE-2026-97689 | none | 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 →
financial_evidence_fetch Fetch Financial Evidence ~75
Fetch bounded untrusted read-only JSON from fixed LiquiLens, Undertow, Seiche, and Palimpsest routes. Status reports transport only; evidence is not evaluated and Evidence Carrier verification is not performed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_bytes | integer | – | – |
| timeout | number | – | – |
| topics | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
financial_evidence_route Route Financial Research ~35
Resolve one or more financial research topics to fixed public raw-JSON sources without fetching them.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| topics | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
financial_evidence_topics List Financial Evidence Topics ~25
List supported topics and their fixed public raw-JSON routes without network access.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Financial Evidence MCP server?
Financial Evidence runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/beepboop2025/financial-evidence-skills:0.1.16. 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/beepboop2025/financial-evidence-skills
claude mcp add beepboop2025-financial-evidence -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/beepboop2025/financial-evidence-skills:0.1.16
What is the Financial Evidence MCP server?
Financial Evidence is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.beepboop2025/financial-evidence. Read-only public financial evidence from LiquiLens, Undertow, Seiche and Palimpsest. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/beepboop2025/financial-evidence-skills).
Is the Financial Evidence MCP server safe to use?
Financial Evidence scores 53 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. The SBOM its publisher attached lists packages with 16 known advisories as of 5 November 2026. We do not grade that SBOM, as nothing verifies it. 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 Financial Evidence MCP server expose?
Financial Evidence exposes 3 tools: financial_evidence_topics, financial_evidence_route, financial_evidence_fetch. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 135 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Financial Evidence MCP server still maintained?
Financial Evidence is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 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 Financial Evidence MCP server under?
Financial Evidence declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.