io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss
OCI · GHCR.IO/CLOUDCORPRECORDS/CACHEMISS · 2 COMPONENTS
CI cache-miss analysis: which hashed key inputs changed and why runs missed or fell back.
Available components
Last scanned (19 hours ago)
Scores higher than 47% of OCI servers
Category CI/CD and DevOps
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 artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
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 (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 1 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability75
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 112 tokens (~112/item across 1 items; 1 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management7
- Stability observed for 2 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 1 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.
- 2 Nov 26 41
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 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/cachemiss@0.1.0
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 →
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 →
analyze_cache_miss ~112
Diagnose CI cache misses: extract the hashed key inputs from the cache key template, classify each non-hit run by cause, and report hit rate, changed hashed files, and the most common cause.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_template | string | yes | Cache key as written in the workflow, e.g. with hashFiles('...') segments |
| restore_keys | array | – | Restore-key prefixes configured in the workflow (optional; echoed in the report) |
| runs | array | yes | Cache outcomes to analyse (at least one) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/cachemiss:0.1.0. 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/cloudcorprecords/cachemiss
claude mcp add cloudcorprecords-cachemiss -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/cachemiss:0.1.0
What is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss. CI cache-miss analysis: which hashed key inputs changed and why runs missed or fell back. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/cloudcorprecords/cachemiss).
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server safe to use?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss scores 41 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 io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server expose?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss exposes 1 tool: analyze_cache_miss. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 112 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server still maintained?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 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 io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss MCP server under?
io.github.CloudCorpRecords/cachemiss declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.