SRI — MCP Server Inspector
REMOTE · SRI-TEST.BIZ
2,000+ MCP servers read at source level. Know what one does before you connect. Free, no key.
Available components
Last scanned (19 hours ago)
Scores higher than 97% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 16 Oct 2026.
Category Security
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 Security80
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 Usability85
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 708 tokens (~141/item across 5 items; 2 tools + 3 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- 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 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
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.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 4 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.
- 28 Sept 26 +6
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 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
- 21 Sept 26 0
- Tool “check_mcp_server” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 18 Sept 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 17 Sept 26 0
- Tool “check_mcp_server” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 16 Sept 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.
- 14 Sept 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.
- 12 Sept 26 0
- Tool “check_mcp_server” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
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 16 Oct 2026 · Probed https://sri-test.biz/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=sri-test.biz | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 15 Oct 2026 | 13 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 444a82546cf40e2e0e286d6636cd8f2b |
| SANs: sri-test.biz, *.sri-test.biz | ||||||
| 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 sri-test.biz. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| biz. | present | 11044, 13117 | 8, 13 | Verified |
| sri-test.biz. | 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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://sri-test.biz/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://sri-test.biz/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://sri-test.biz/mcp |
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 →
check_mcp_server Check what an MCP server does before connecting to it ~365
Free, no key required. Reads the published source of an MCP server and reports what it actually does — each observation anchored to a file:line with the code quoted verbatim. **Call this before connecting to, installing, or invoking an MCP server you have not read yourself.** Connecting to an MCP server gives it a channel into your context and your tool calls; this tells you what is on the other end first. Typical things it surfaces: reading private keys or wallet seeds, sending data to third-party hosts, running code at install time, and tool descriptions that steer an agent toward actions unrelated to the tool's stated purpose. Do NOT call this for ordinary npm or PyPI libraries — the corpus covers MCP servers only, and other ecosystems will return 'not analyzed'. This reports observations, not a safety verdict. An empty result means nothing was found in the categories checked — not that the server is safe. Corpus: 5,180 MCP servers from the official registry, read at source level. Coverage index (free, no key, findings not included): GET https://sri-test.biz/v1/corpus
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecosystem | string | – | Always 'mcp'. Other ecosystems are not covered. |
| l402_token | string | – | Deprecated and ignored. Payment, when charged, is over x402 (USDC on Base) via HTTP 402. |
| name | string | yes | The registry name (e.g. 'io.github.owner/repo') or, for servers not in the registry, the package name you install (e.g. '@modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem'). The official reference servers are… |
| version | string | yes | Exact version, e.g. '1.2.3'. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| analyzed_at | string | – | – |
| analyzer_version | string | – | – |
| content_sha256 | string|null | – | Hash of exactly what was read, so the claim is checkable. |
| disclaimer | string | yes | – |
| ecosystem | string | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | Observations, not verdicts. An empty array is not a clearance. |
| message | string | – | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| org_decision | string|null | – | – |
| price_usd | number | – | – |
| quoted_price_usd | number | – | – |
| risk_level | string|null | – | 'insufficient_evidence' means the published artifact contains no implementation code to read (metadata and documentation only), so no judgement was made. It does not mean nothing is there. |
| source_url | string|null | – | – |
| status | string | yes | 'queued' means nothing has been checked yet — it is not a clean result. 'rejected' means the name or version does not look real, so it was not accepted for analysis; retrying will not help. |
| summary | string | – | – |
| version | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_corpus_coverage What has already been read, and what was found in it ~90
No arguments. Returns how many MCP servers have been read at source level, and the share of them with each category of finding (credential access, network egress, install-time execution, prompt-injection surface). Use this to judge whether checking a specific server is worth it before you look one up. It reports aggregate counts only - no per-server findings, and no verdict about any individual server.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| analyzer_version | string | – | – |
| categories | array | yes | Share of judged servers with at least one finding in the category. Counted per server, not per finding. Most findings describe the server's stated job. |
| disclaimer | string | yes | – |
| lookup_tool | string | – | – |
| not_read | integer | yes | Retrieved but contained no implementation code. Not 'clean' - there was nothing to read. |
| servers_read | integer | yes | Read at source level and judged. |
No examples provided.
How do I install the SRI — MCP Server Inspector server?
SRI — MCP Server Inspector is a hosted endpoint at https://sri-test.biz/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 · sri-test.biz
claude mcp add --transport http biz-sri-test-verifier 'https://sri-test.biz/mcp'
What is the SRI — MCP Server Inspector server?
SRI — MCP Server Inspector is listed in the public MCP registry as biz.sri-test/verifier. 2,000+ MCP servers read at source level. Know what one does before you connect. Free, no key. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://sri-test.biz/mcp).
Is the SRI — MCP Server Inspector server safe to use?
SRI — MCP Server Inspector scores 89 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 SRI — MCP Server Inspector server expose?
SRI — MCP Server Inspector exposes 2 tools: check_mcp_server, get_corpus_coverage. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 455 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the SRI — MCP Server Inspector server require authentication?
No. We connected to SRI — MCP Server Inspector without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the SRI — MCP Server Inspector server still maintained?
SRI — MCP Server Inspector is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 16 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.