Voix contact
REMOTE · LBM.CO · SCANNED OCT 7
Reach a human at Voix: submit the studio contact form and get a reply by email.
Available components
Recent critical change
Authorization (2 Oct 2026). See the changelog before you install this server.
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 Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation check failed: no authorisation is required to call this server, and it exposes a tool marked destructive (submit_contact_form). See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability77
- 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 892 tokens (~297/item across 3 items; 2 tools + 1 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 Management73
- Stability observed for 22 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
- 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
- All 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.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 current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
- Supports UI / widget rendering.Pass
How do I install the Voix contact MCP server?
Voix contact is a hosted endpoint at https://lbm.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.
remote · lbm.co
claude mcp add --transport http co-lbm-contact 'https://lbm.co/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"co-lbm-contact": {
"url": "https://lbm.co/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"co-lbm-contact": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://lbm.co/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.co-lbm-contact] url = "https://lbm.co/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"co-lbm-contact": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://lbm.co/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add co-lbm-contact --url 'https://lbm.co/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
co-lbm-contact:
url: "https://lbm.co/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"co-lbm-contact": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://lbm.co/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add co-lbm-contact -t streamable-http -u 'https://lbm.co/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"co-lbm-contact": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://lbm.co/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 7 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 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.
- 4 Oct 26 +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.
- 2 Oct 26 −5
- Authorization: partial → fail ▼ critical
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “submit_contact_form” is now declared destructive security
- Schema quality: 548 → 297 ▲ functional
- The server now declares the “resources” capability functional
- First check of Capabilities: pass functional
- First check of Schema quality: 100 functional
- New resource “contact-form” functional
- Server version: 1.0.0 → 1.1.0 functional
- New tool “draft_contact_form” functional
- 1 Oct 26 +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.
- 29 Sept 26 +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.
- 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
- 27 Sept 26 +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.
- 25 Sept 26 +1
- 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 8 Oct 2026 · Probed https://lbm.co/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=lbm.co | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 3 Oct 2026 | 1 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 67ea2287ee612f68fe83f5c109621282a69 |
| SANs: lbm.co | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of lbm.co. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| co. | present | 7786 | 8 | Verified |
| lbm.co. | 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=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://lbm.co/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://lbm.co/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://lbm.co/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 →
draft_contact_form Draft a message to the Voix team ~274
Show the person an editable contact form for the Voix and LogicBomb Media team, prefilled with whatever you already know. Use this in place of submit_contact_form whenever you can show interactive content: the person checks the details, fills any gaps and presses Send themselves, so nothing reaches the team without their say-so. Prefill only what they actually told you — never invent a name, an email address or a budget. This tool sends nothing. It only draws the form. Once it is on screen, do not also call submit_contact_form for the same enquiry; the form does that when the person sends it, and tells you the reference.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | string | – | Indicative budget, only if the person actually shared one. |
| company | string | – | Company or organisation, if mentioned. |
| string | – | Reply-to email address, if the person has given one. Leave it out rather than guess. | |
| message | string | – | A draft of the enquiry in the person's own words, from what they have told you so far. |
| name | string | – | Full name, if the person has given it. |
| phone | string | – | Phone number, if they would rather be called. |
| scope | string | – | The kind of work, only if it is clear from what they said. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | object | yes | The prefilled fields, as the form will show them. |
No examples provided.
submit_contact_form Contact the Voix team ~379
Send an enquiry to the Voix and LogicBomb Media team through the contact form on their website. Use this when someone wants to start a project, request a quote, book a demo, ask about pricing or timelines, discuss a partnership, or otherwise reach a human at Voix or LogicBomb Media. The submission goes straight to the team's notifications and a person replies by email, normally within two business days. There is no other tool here — nothing reads data back, so this is the only thing this server does. Call it only with details the person actually gave you: their real name, a reply-to address they confirmed, and their own description of what they need. Do not invent contact details, do not submit on a hunch, and tell the person you are sending the message before you send it. Each submission reaches a real human's inbox, so send one per enquiry rather than retrying a call that already succeeded.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | string | – | Indicative budget, only if the person has actually shared one. Never estimate this on their behalf. |
| company | string | – | Company or organisation they are enquiring on behalf of, if they mentioned one. |
| string | yes | Email address to reply to. Must be one the person gave you — the answer goes here, so a guessed address means they never hear back. | |
| message | string | yes | What the enquiry is about, in the person's own words: what they are building, what they need from us, and any deadline they are working to. |
| name | string | yes | Full name of the person making the enquiry. |
| phone | string | – | Phone number, if they would rather be called than emailed. |
| scope | string | – | The kind of work the enquiry is about. Pick the closest match only if it is clear from what they told you. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | string | yes | Short reference for this submission. Give it to the person so they can quote it if they follow up. |
| replyBy | string | yes | Plain-English description of when to expect a reply. |
| submitted | boolean | yes | True when the enquiry reached the team. |
No examples provided.
What is the Voix contact MCP server?
Voix contact is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as co.lbm/contact. Reach a human at Voix: submit the studio contact form and get a reply by email. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://lbm.co/mcp).
Is the Voix contact MCP server safe to use?
Voix contact scores 77 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 Voix contact MCP server expose?
Voix contact exposes 2 tools: submit_contact_form, draft_contact_form. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 653 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Voix contact MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Voix contact without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Voix contact MCP server still maintained?
Voix contact is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 7 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.