FirstPass Memo listing check
REMOTE · FIRSTPASSMEMO.COM
Red-flag check for business-for-sale listings: payback, asking multiple, flags, seller questions.
Available components
Last scanned (20 hours ago)
Scores higher than 85% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security74
- 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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability72
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 345 tokens (~172/item across 2 items; 2 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 Management80
- Stability observed for 24 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 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 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
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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 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.
- 3 Nov 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.
- 1 Nov 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.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 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 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 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 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 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://firstpassmemo.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=firstpassmemo.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 7 Oct 2026 | 5 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 9f4b27eb47e733e13a3838d3090a1a5 |
| SANs: firstpassmemo.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 firstpassmemo.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| firstpassmemo.com. | No DS | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://firstpassmemo.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://firstpassmemo.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://firstpassmemo.com/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 →
check_listing Check a business-for-sale listing for red flags ~268
Runs FirstPass Memo's 33 published red-flag rules on a small online-business listing (SaaS, content site, ecommerce, Amazon FBA, newsletter, app; roughly $10k-$150k) from Flippa, Empire Flippers, Acquire.com or any broker. Pass the listing text the user provides and/or the key numbers. Returns payback in months, the asking multiple vs comparable listings, every flag that fired (severity, why it matters, link to the rule) and questions to ask the seller. Screening only: not advice, a valuation or verification. Does not fetch URLs.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| age_months | number | – | Months the business has been making money. |
| asking_price | number | – | Asking price in USD. Overrides any price found in the text. |
| category | string | – | Business type. |
| listing_text | string | – | Listing text pasted by the user (asking price, profit, revenue, age, traffic, churn, etc.). Max 20,000 characters. |
| monthly_profit | number | – | Average monthly net profit in USD. |
| monthly_revenue | number | – | Average monthly revenue in USD. |
| traffic_sources | string | – | Traffic mix, e.g. 'Organic search 70%, Direct 20%, Social 10%'. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_rules List the 33 FirstPass red-flag rules ~34
Returns the 33 published rules the checker uses (code, title, group, severity, when it fires, explainer URL).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server?
FirstPass Memo listing check is a hosted endpoint at https://firstpassmemo.com/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 · firstpassmemo.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-firstpassmemo-listing-check 'https://firstpassmemo.com/mcp'
What is the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server?
FirstPass Memo listing check is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.firstpassmemo/listing-check. Red-flag check for business-for-sale listings: payback, asking multiple, flags, seller questions. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://firstpassmemo.com/mcp).
Is the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server safe to use?
FirstPass Memo listing check scores 82 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 FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server expose?
FirstPass Memo listing check exposes 2 tools: check_listing, list_rules. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 302 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to FirstPass Memo listing check without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server still maintained?
FirstPass Memo listing check 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.
What did VerifyMCP test on the FirstPass Memo listing check MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on FirstPass Memo listing check, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.