Double AIgents DSAR service
REMOTE · WWW.DOUBLEAIGENTS.COM
GDPR DSAR deadlines, breach triage, AI tool checks, HR retention and letters (UK/EU/CH)
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 79% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 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 Usability60
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1708 tokens (~170/item across 10 items; 10 tools + 0 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 Management60
- Stability observed for 18 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage93
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 80% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 10 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 11 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
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.
- 5 Nov 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.
- 3 Nov 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.
- 1 Nov 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.
- 30 Oct 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.
- 28 Oct 26 +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.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 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 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://www.doubleaigents.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=www.doubleaigents.com | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 2 Nov 2026 | 31 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6a88859eec3206b499762ce398b40f672f6 |
| SANs: www.doubleaigents.com | ||||||
| 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 www.doubleaigents.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| doubleaigents.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=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.doubleaigents.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.doubleaigents.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://www.doubleaigents.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 →
ai_tool_check AI tool check: DPIA and EU AI Act screening ~289
Screens a planned use of an AI tool: whether a DPIA is likely to be required (Art. 35(3), the ICO high-risk list, the WP248 criteria; FADP Art. 22 for Switzerland), EU AI Act risk flags (Annex III high-risk areas, especially employment; Art. 5 prohibited practices such as emotion recognition at work; current application dates after the Digital Omnibus), and automated decision rules (GDPR Art. 22, UK GDPR Arts 22A to 22D). Findings with sources. The use_case text is not stored or returned. General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| automated_decisions_with_significant_effect | boolean | yes | True if it makes or drives decisions with legal or similarly significant effects without meaningful human involvement. |
| employees_or_candidates | boolean | yes | True if it processes data about staff or job candidates. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | UK, EU (EU/EEA) or CH (Switzerland). |
| large_scale | boolean | yes | – |
| new_technology | boolean | yes | True if it is an innovative use or new technology for the organisation. |
| processes_personal_data | boolean | yes | – |
| special_category | boolean | yes | Health, biometric, criminal offence data and the like. |
| use_case | string | yes | Short description of what the AI tool does. No personal data. Not stored. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
breach_clock Personal data breach notification clock ~163
When a personal data breach must be notified to the regulator: 72 hours from awareness in the UK and EU/EEA (Art. 33), "as soon as possible" in Switzerland (revised FADP Art. 24). Gives the deadline, the rule, the processor and individual-notification position, and the facts the regulator will ask for. The controller decides whether to notify. General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aware_at | string | yes | ISO date and time, with time zone, when the controller became aware of the breach. Example: 2026-10-17T09:30:00+01:00. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | UK, EU (EU/EEA GDPR) or CH (Switzerland). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
breach_triage Personal data breach triage ~290
A likely-reportability view on a personal data breach (UK, EU/EEA, Switzerland), following the ICO guide "Personal data breaches: a guide" and EDPB Guidelines 9/2022: whether notifying the regulator and telling the people affected is likely or unlikely to be required, the factors behind that view, and the notification deadline. The controller decides. General information, not legal advice. Do not pass names or other personal data.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| aware_at | string | yes | ISO date and time, with time zone, when the controller became aware of the breach. Example: 2026-10-17T09:30:00+01:00. |
| encrypted | boolean | yes | True if the data was strongly encrypted and the key was not compromised. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | UK, EU (EU/EEA GDPR) or CH (Switzerland). |
| people_affected | – | yes | Approximate number of people affected, or "unknown". |
| recipient | string | yes | Who received or could access the data: a trusted internal person, a trusted external professional, unknown or the public, or a malicious actor. |
| recoverable | string | yes | Whether the data has been recovered or deletion confirmed, is likely to be, or not. |
| special_category | boolean | yes | True if special category or criminal offence data is involved (health, biometric, criminal records, etc.). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_deadline DSAR response deadline ~119
Calculate the statutory deadline for answering a data subject access request in the UK, the EU/EEA or Switzerland, with the rule that applies and the extension position. General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| extended | boolean | – | Also calculate the extended deadline where an extension is available. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | UK, EU (EU/EEA GDPR) or CH (Switzerland). |
| received_date | string | yes | ISO date the clock starts. For the UK, the later of receipt and receipt of any requested ID or fee. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_letter_template DSAR letter template ~152
Plain-text letter template, in British English with [placeholders], for an acknowledgement, an extension of time or a request for clarification of a data subject access request, under UK, EU/EEA or Swiss law. Fills in the dates if received_date is given. General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| due_date | string | – | Optional ISO due date, used in place of the calculated one. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | UK, EU (EU/EEA GDPR) or CH (Switzerland). |
| kind | string | yes | – |
| received_date | string | – | Optional ISO date the clock started. For the UK, the later of receipt and receipt of any requested ID or fee. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_quote DSAR fixed-price quote ~87
Fixed price from Double AIgents for preparing a DSAR response, by pack size in pages after de-duplication. Also gives the retainer price (15% off). Excludes VAT.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | string | – | GBP (UK), EUR (EU/EEA) or CHF (Switzerland). |
| pages | integer | yes | Number of pages after de-duplication. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_request_scoping Start DSAR scoping ~149
Explains how to start free scoping and returns a prefilled email (mailto URL) to james@doubleaigents.com. Sends nothing and stores nothing. Do not pass the requester's personal data or the request letter.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| approx_volume | string | – | Optional rough volume, for example "two mailboxes, about 3 years". |
| contact_email | string | yes | Email of that person. |
| contact_name | string | yes | Name of the person at the organisation handling the request (not the requester). |
| date_received | string | yes | ISO date the request was received. |
| jurisdiction | string | yes | – |
| organisation | string | yes | The controller organisation that received the request. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_search_checklist DSAR search checklist ~115
Where to search when answering a subject access request, especially from an employee: Microsoft 365 (Exchange and archives, shared mailboxes, Teams, OneDrive, SharePoint), other collaboration tools, HR, payroll, recruitment, CCTV, access logs, devices, line manager notes, paper files, occupational health and backups; search-term tips; and the search standard (UK GDPR Art. 15(1A) reasonable and proportionate searches). General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| organisation_type | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
dsar_service_info DSAR service information ~53
What the Double AIgents DSAR service covers: scoping, collection guidance, de-duplication, redaction, exemption recommendations, two independent reviews, secure delivery, data handling, jurisdictions and partner arrangements.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
hr_retention HR record retention periods (UK) ~86
Recommended retention period for a common UK HR record, whether it is statutory or only recommended, and the source (HMRC, Home Office, RIDDOR 2013, Working Time Regulations, Limitation Act 1980, ICO, DBS). UK only for now. General information, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | string | – | – |
| record_type | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server?
Double AIgents DSAR service is a hosted endpoint at https://www.doubleaigents.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 · www.doubleaigents.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-doubleaigents-www-dsar 'https://www.doubleaigents.com/api/mcp'
What is the Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server?
Double AIgents DSAR service is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.doubleaigents.www/dsar. GDPR DSAR deadlines, breach triage, AI tool checks, HR retention and letters (UK/EU/CH). This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.doubleaigents.com/api/mcp).
Is the Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server safe to use?
Double AIgents DSAR service scores 79 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 Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server expose?
Double AIgents DSAR service exposes 10 tools: dsar_deadline, dsar_quote, dsar_service_info, dsar_request_scoping, breach_clock, and 5 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,503 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Double AIgents DSAR service without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Double AIgents DSAR service MCP server still maintained?
Double AIgents DSAR service is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.