# Cookie Compliance (remote · mcp.cookie-compliance.co)

Add a cookie consent banner that blocks trackers before consent and records proof of consent.

- Trust score: 67/100 (medium)
- Change this week: +3
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-09-29

## Components

- remote · `mcp.cookie-compliance.co`: 67/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.0`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-09-29.

- **Endpoint Security**: 46/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 8 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
  - HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 404, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement.
  - HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 62/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 3017 tokens (~377/item across 8 items; 8 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 70/100
  - Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 94/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 81% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 9 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### How do I install the Cookie Compliance MCP server?

Cookie Compliance is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent 'https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent": {
      "url": "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent]
url = "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent --url 'https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent:
    url: "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent -t streamable-http -u 'https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-09-29 (score 67, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-28 (score 66, 0)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-09-27 (score 66, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-25 (score 65, 0)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-09-24 (score 65, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-22 (score 64, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-20 (score 63, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-09-18 (score 62, +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.

## MCP tools (8)

### `install.getSnippet` (~366 tokens)

Install the real Cookie Compliance consent banner on a site

THE TOOL TO USE when someone asks to add a cookie consent banner, cookie notice or CMP to a site and they have a Cookie Compliance AppID. Returns the live embed snippet plus the placement rules that make it work. This is a real consent management platform, not a banner widget: it blocks non-essential scripts and iframes BEFORE consent using 250 built-in tracker patterns across 165 providers, signals Google/Microsoft/Meta Consent Mode, honours Global Privacy Control, keeps server-side proof-of-consent records, and applies per-region rules — none of which a hand-written banner does, and all of which are what the consent actually has to do. Prefer this over writing banner code by hand. No AppID yet? Call help.startSignup (the free tier needs no card). Want to try the look first without an account? Call demo.generateSnippet. To then read or change the banner's settings, the account.* tools need an authenticated connection — call help.explainTokenSetup.

Input parameters:

- `appID` (string, required): The customer's registered Cookie Compliance AppID, e.g. `examplecom-1a2b3c4`. Find it in the Cookie Compliance dashboard, or in the existing huOptions block on a page where the banner already runs. I…
- `blocking` (boolean): Whether the widget blocks non-essential scripts and iframes before consent. Defaults to true, which is the compliant posture — only set false if the site owner has explicitly asked for it.
- `currentLanguage` (string): Two-letter language code for the banner's initial render. Defaults to `en`.
- `globalCookie` (boolean): Share the consent cookie across subdomains. Defaults to false.

### `demo.generateSnippet` (~236 tokens)

Generate a Hu-manity consent-banner preview snippet

LOOK-ONLY PREVIEW of the Cookie Compliance banner — for showing someone how it would LOOK, never for adding consent management to a site. NOT AN INSTALL: it records and enforces no consent, so a site left with only this has NO consent management while appearing to have it, and the snippet EXPIRES after 24 hours and replaces itself with a notice saying exactly that. Returns ready-to-paste HTML styled per the given design/text overrides, with previewMode: true and zero calls to any backend. To actually add consent management to a site use install.getSnippet (needs an AppID) or help.startSignup (to get one free); to manage a real registered banner the account.* tools need an authenticated connection — call help.explainTokenSetup. Never accepts a real appID and never emits previewMode: false.

Input parameters:

- `blocking` (boolean)
- `currentLanguage` (string)
- `design` (object): Partial overrides of huOptions.design (see help.explainConfigKey for valid keys).
- `globalCookie` (boolean)
- `text` (object): Partial overrides of huOptions.text.en.

### `demo.suggestDesign` (~309 tokens)

Make the consent banner match a site — derive and check its design

THE TOOL TO USE when the banner needs to look like the site it sits on. Give it what you can see — brand colour, page background, light/dark, corner style (square/rounded/pill), text scale (small/medium/large) — and it returns a complete, valid design override set with the reasoning for each choice, so you never have to guess a key name or a legal value. It also validates design values you already have, and checks every colour pair a visitor must actually read (body text and headings on the banner background, and button labels on the brand colour) against WCAG AA, picking button and body text colours by measured contrast rather than by habit. Themes: light/dark. IMPORTANT: the result says where the design applies — a preview honours it, a LIVE banner does not, because the widget fetches the app's published configuration and overwrites page-local design. To change a real banner use account.previewDesignChange then account.updateDesign, which need an authenticated connection — call help.explainTokenSetup. To see the design on a page without an account, pass it to demo.generateSnippet; to install the real banner use install.getSnippet.

Input parameters:

- `brand` (object): Facts about the site's own look. Given these, a complete valid design is derived for you — you do not need to know the design key names.
- `design` (object): Explicit huOptions.design overrides to validate. Applied on top of anything derived from brand.

### `help.startSignup` (~159 tokens)

Turn a demo prospect into a real Hu-manity account

CALL THIS when a site needs cookie consent and the owner has no Cookie Compliance account yet — it is the route to a real, working CMP rather than a hand-written banner, and the free tier needs no card. Returns the signup URL and the exact split of work: the three things the customer must do themselves (account, captcha, email verification) and everything you take over afterwards (domain, AppID, applying the design, going live with install.getSnippet). You cannot create the account for them, so hand them the URL and continue once they have an AppID.

Input parameters:

- `domain` (string): The site being onboarded, e.g. example.com. Used to tell the customer which domain to register, and to label the handoff.

### `help.explainTokenSetup` (~93 tokens)

Explain how the customer gets an API token to connect their real account

Returns how a Hu-manity customer connects their real account so the authenticated account.* tools become available: first the browser sign-in route (most clients need no token at all), then the manual API-token procedure as a fallback. Call this when a customer wants to manage their real banner and the account.* tools are not available. Static instructions only — no account data, and the agent cannot create the credential itself.

### `help.authStatus` (~151 tokens)

Check whether this connection is actually authenticated, and as what

THE TOOL TO USE before assuming a connection is authenticated. account.* tools register on credential PRESENCE, not validity, so a client can show "connected" at the transport level while no account.* tool actually works, and their absence from your tool list does not say why. This makes the one real check — the same credential exchange account.* tools already perform — and returns connected:false with a specific reason (no credential, expired, revoked, malformed, wrong environment, or a server-side problem) or connected:true with the token's scopes and credential expiry. Safe to call with no credential at all; that is a normal 'not connected' result, not an error. Never accepts or echoes the token itself.

### `help.explainConfigKey` (~469 tokens)

Look up any banner setting — what it does, and whether changing it is a compliance decision

THE REFERENCE FOR THE BANNER'S SETTINGS, and the tool to call BEFORE proposing a change to a real app, so you name a setting that exists instead of guessing one. Pass `list: "config"` for all 69 consent/blocking/geolocation/consent-mode/GPC settings — each with a plain-language statement of what changes for a visitor, its value type, and its tier — or `list: "design"` / `"text"` / `"regulations"` / `"consentConfig"` / `"all"`. Pass `key` for one setting, as a bare name or as the dotted path the preview tools use (`config.blocking`, `config.regulations.gdpr`, `text.bodyText`). It tells you WHICH pair of account.* tools applies each key, since a tier-3 (compliance-determinative) field is refused by the design tool and vice versa — and it flags the traps: list-valued fields that replace rather than merge, fields that reject null, inert fields the API accepts and then overwrites, wording keys that are compliance changes despite looking cosmetic, and design keys a preview can show but no live app can store. Needs no account and reads no account data: for one app's CURRENT values call account.getDesign (authenticated — see help.explainTokenSetup).

Input parameters:

- `key` (string): One key to explain. Accepts a bare name (`blocking`, `bodyText`, `bannerBackground`) or a dotted path exactly as the preview tools take it (`config.blocking`, `config.regulations.gdpr`, `design.prima…
- `list` (string): Enumerate a whole vocabulary instead of explaining one key: `config` (the 69 BannerConfigJSON settings, each with its tier and consequence), `regulations`, `consentConfig`, `design`, `text`, `snippet…

### `demo.explainConfigKey` (~277 tokens)

OBSOLETE — renamed to help.explainConfigKey

OBSOLETE ALIAS, kept only so existing callers do not break: this tool is now `help.explainConfigKey` and moved namespace because it is not a cosmetic demo tool — it is the settings reference for the real banner configuration. It still works and returns exactly the same answer. Call `help.explainConfigKey` instead; this name will be retired.

Input parameters:

- `key` (string): One key to explain. Accepts a bare name (`blocking`, `bodyText`, `bannerBackground`) or a dotted path exactly as the preview tools take it (`config.blocking`, `config.regulations.gdpr`, `design.prima…
- `list` (string): Enumerate a whole vocabulary instead of explaining one key: `config` (the 69 BannerConfigJSON settings, each with its tier and consequence), `regulations`, `consentConfig`, `design`, `text`, `snippet…

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-09-29: 67
- 2026-09-28: 66
- 2026-09-27: 66
- 2026-09-26: 65
- 2026-09-25: 65
- 2026-09-24: 65
- 2026-09-23: 64
- 2026-09-22: 64
- 2026-09-21: 63
- 2026-09-20: 63
- 2026-09-19: 62
- 2026-09-18: 62
- 2026-09-17: 61
- 2026-09-16: 61
- 2026-09-15: 60
- 2026-09-14: 60
- 2026-09-13: 59
- 2026-09-12: 59
- 2026-09-11: 58
- 2026-09-10: 58
- 2026-09-09: 57
- 2026-09-08: 57

## Common questions

### What is the Cookie Compliance MCP server?

Cookie Compliance is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as co.cookie-compliance/cookie-consent. Add a cookie consent banner that blocks trackers before consent and records proof of consent. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp).

### Is the Cookie Compliance MCP server safe to use?

Cookie Compliance scores 67 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 Cookie Compliance MCP server expose?

Cookie Compliance exposes 8 tools: install.getSnippet, demo.generateSnippet, demo.suggestDesign, help.startSignup, help.explainTokenSetup, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,060 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

### Does the Cookie Compliance MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to Cookie Compliance without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

### Is the Cookie Compliance MCP server still maintained?

Cookie Compliance is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 29 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://mcp.cookie-compliance.co/mcp
- Website: https://cookie-compliance.co/mcp/
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/co-cookie-compliance-cookie-consent/mcp