ChargerDojo
REMOTE · CHARGERDOJO.COM · SCANNED SEP 22
OCPI versions, what changed between them, and which modules and journeys ChargerDojo tests.
Available components
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 not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 6 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 Usability79
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 355 tokens (~59/item across 6 items; 6 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 7 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
How do I install the ChargerDojo MCP server?
ChargerDojo is a hosted endpoint at https://chargerdojo.com/api/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 · chargerdojo.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-chargerdojo-ocpi 'https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-chargerdojo-ocpi": {
"url": "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"com-chargerdojo-ocpi": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.com-chargerdojo-ocpi] url = "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"com-chargerdojo-ocpi": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add com-chargerdojo-ocpi --url 'https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
com-chargerdojo-ocpi:
url: "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"com-chargerdojo-ocpi": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add com-chargerdojo-ocpi -t streamable-http -u 'https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-chargerdojo-ocpi": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://chargerdojo.com/api/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.
- 22 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 21 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 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.
- 16 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 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 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 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.
- 12 Sept 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.
- 10 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 8 Sept 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.
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 22 Sept 2026 · Probed https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=chargerdojo.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 3 Aug 2026 | 1 Nov 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | e024dd797850f2510e216d15d23ca602 |
| SANs: chargerdojo.com, *.chargerdojo.com | ||||||
| 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 chargerdojo.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| chargerdojo.com. | 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 |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self';style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline';font-src 'self' data:;script-src 'self' https://www.googletagmanager.com https://static.cloudflareinsights.com https://analytics.ahrefs.com https://us-assets.i.posthog.com https://*.clarity.ms;connect-src 'self' https://synergyboat.us.auth0.com https://*.google-analytics.com https://www.googletagmanager.com https://cloudflareinsights.com https://analytics.ahrefs.com https://us.i.posthog.com https://us-assets.i.posthog.com https://*.clarity.ms https://c.bing.com;frame-src 'self' https://synergyboat.us.auth0.com;img-src 'self' data: https:;worker-src 'self' blob:;base-uri 'self';form-action 'self';frame-ancestors 'self';object-src 'none';script-src-attr 'none';upgrade-insecure-requests |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| 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://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://chargerdojo.com/api/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 →
chargerdojo_compare_ocpi_versions ~77
Compare two OCPI versions: what changed in the protocol between them, and which modules ChargerDojo gained.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | string | yes | The version being moved away from, for example 2.1.1. |
| to | string | yes | The version being moved to, for example 2.2.1. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
chargerdojo_describe_access ~35
Explain what this server can do, which tools are open to anyone, and which need a ChargerDojo API key.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version ~64
Describe one OCPI version: how the credentials token is encoded, whether endpoints split into sender and receiver, which modules are implemented, and what the known limits are.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | string | yes | OCPI version, for example 2.2.1. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
chargerdojo_list_conformance_suites ~59
List the OCPI conformance suites that can be run, grouped by module, with how many checks each carries.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | string | – | Optional OCPI version to narrow to, for example 2.2.1. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
chargerdojo_list_journey_templates ~34
List the OCPI charging journeys that can be run against the built-in sandbox, with how long each takes.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
chargerdojo_list_ocpi_versions ~34
List the OCPI versions ChargerDojo covers, with what each one is for and which modules are implemented.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the ChargerDojo MCP server?
ChargerDojo is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.chargerdojo/ocpi. OCPI versions, what changed between them, and which modules and journeys ChargerDojo tests. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://chargerdojo.com/api/mcp).
Is the ChargerDojo MCP server safe to use?
ChargerDojo scores 81 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 ChargerDojo MCP server expose?
ChargerDojo exposes 6 tools: chargerdojo_describe_access, chargerdojo_list_ocpi_versions, chargerdojo_get_ocpi_version, chargerdojo_compare_ocpi_versions, chargerdojo_list_journey_templates, chargerdojo_list_conformance_suites. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 303 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ChargerDojo MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to ChargerDojo without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the ChargerDojo MCP server still maintained?
ChargerDojo is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 22 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.