Haypile
MCPB · HAYPILE_0.3.1_LINUX_AMD64.MCPB · 5 COMPONENTS
Hybrid search over your local documents, with file and page citations. One binary, fully local.
Last scanned (16 hours ago)
Scores higher than 89% of MCPB servers
Category Search and Retrieval
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: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).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 (AGPL-3.0-only).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 71 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability81
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 131 tokens (~65/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 Management77
- Stability observed for 23 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 2 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
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.
- 18 Oct 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.
- 15 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.
- 14 Oct 26 +2
- Maintenance: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 12 Oct 26 0
- Maintenance: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- 10 Oct 26 +2
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 5 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 4 Oct 26 +4
- Stability: unverified → 0.30 ▲ functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → 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 18 Oct 2026 · Analysed mcpb/https://github.com/BenyD/haypile/releases/download/v0.3.1/haypile_0.3.1_linux_amd64.mcpb
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | mcpb |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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 →
list_sources ~26
List the folders currently indexed in the user's local document index, with file and chunk counts.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_documents ~105
Search the user's local document index (contracts, notes, papers, PDFs) with hybrid keyword + semantic search. Returns the most relevant passages with file-and-page citations. Use this whenever a question might be answered by the user's own files.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | Max passages to return (default 8) |
| query | string | yes | What to search for; plain language or exact identifiers both work |
| tag | string | – | Optional: restrict to folders indexed with this tag |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Haypile MCP server?
Haypile ships as an MCPB bundle, a single file you download and open in an MCP host that supports MCPB bundles, such as Claude Desktop. The host reads the launch command from the bundle's own manifest, so there is no command to copy. The MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check the download against.
mcpb · haypile_0.3.1_linux_amd64.mcpb
Download bundleThe MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check it against. Open it with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the Haypile MCP server?
Haypile is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.BenyD/haypile. Hybrid search over your local documents, with file and page citations. One binary, fully local. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/BenyD/haypile/releases/download/v0.3.1/haypile_0.3.1_linux_amd64.mcpb).
Is the Haypile MCP server safe to use?
Haypile scores 53 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 Haypile MCP server expose?
Haypile exposes 2 tools: search_documents, list_sources. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 131 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the Haypile MCP server under?
Haypile declares the AGPL-3.0-only licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.