BotOrNot
REMOTE · GETBOTORNOT.COM
Is a trading bot legit? Sourced bot fact sheets, regulator scam records and on-chain results.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 81% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 6 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 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. 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
- 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 Usability66
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 938 tokens (~78/item across 12 items; 12 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage76
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 29% 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 12 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 13 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.
- 6 Nov 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
- 4 Nov 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.
- 3 Nov 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- 2 Nov 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.
- 30 Oct 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 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.
- 26 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.
- 24 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.
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 6 Nov 2026 · Probed https://getbotornot.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=getbotornot.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 15 Oct 2026 | 14 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | f854c1119cbc1394136366f5fba0f6f3 |
| SANs: getbotornot.com, www.getbotornot.com, *.www.getbotornot.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 getbotornot.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| getbotornot.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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' https://static.cloudflareinsights.com; style-src 'self' https://fonts.googleapis.com 'unsafe-inline'; font-src https://fonts.gstatic.com; img-src 'self' data:; connect-src 'self' https://cloudflareinsights.com; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://getbotornot.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://getbotornot.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://getbotornot.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_bot ~99
Check a trading bot name or website/domain against BotOrNot's sourced bot directory and every regulator scam record (SEC, CFTC and a state regulator crypto scam tracker). Returns a verdict (watchlist_match, documented_bot, both, no_record) with source URLs. no_record is NOT proof of safety.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | Bot name or website, e.g. "3Commas" or "web3-cryptohopper.com" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_telegram ~106
Check a Telegram @handle or t.me link: is it an official handle of a listed trading bot (verified on the bot's own site or docs), a known impersonator listed by the bot's own docs, a look-alike, or not in our records? Matches include custody model and incident history. A match is NOT a safety rating; unknown is not proof of a scam.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | string | yes | @handle, t.me/ link or tg://resolve link |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_website ~98
Scam signals for a website: exact matches in a state regulator scam tracker, look-alikes of real bot domains (typos, homoglyphs, brand+words), domain age from public RDAP, HTTPS, and optional red-flag phrases in pasted text. Signals, not a verdict.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | string | – | Optional text from the site or message to scan for regulator-listed red-flag phrases |
| url | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compare_bots ~42
Side-by-side sourced facts and report cards for two bots by slug. No winner is picked.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | string | yes | – |
| b | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_bot ~51
Full sourced fact sheet for one documented bot by slug (see list_bots): pricing, markets, custody model, red flags with sources, report card, impostor scam reports.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_changes ~60
Recent change events: new regulator cases, new state scam-tracker reports, bot shutdowns, report-card changes and keyword-matched SEC/CFTC releases. Optionally filter by bot slug.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot | string | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_incidents ~77
Verified security incidents (hacks, exploits, key leaks) at trading bots: date, what happened, users affected, estimated loss as named in the sources, refund status and source URLs. Optionally filter by bot slug.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot | string | – | Bot slug, e.g. "maestro" |
| limit | integer | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_leaderboard ~61
Hyperliquid vault leaderboard from on-chain data: open vaults with >= $100k TVL ranked by 30-day PnL (USD). Refreshed daily. Past results do not predict future ones.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_prediction_markets ~45
Prediction-market venues (Kalshi, Polymarket US, Gemini Predictions) with their CFTC status and official sources, plus the documented prediction-market bots and their report cards.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_report_card ~66
The rule-based BotOrNot report card for a bot (Clear record, Caution, Red flags, Closed, Limited data) with the exact sourced facts and rule ids that produced it. Not a rating or investment advice; payouts never change it.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_bots ~61
List documented trading bots (slug, name, category, report card, official_url). Optionally filter by category or report card result.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | Exact category name, e.g. "Prediction market bots" |
| result | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_scams ~65
Search regulator scam and enforcement records (SEC, CFTC and a state regulator crypto scam tracker) by name, website or keyword. Every record has an official source URL. Regulator complaints are allegations until resolved.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the BotOrNot MCP server?
BotOrNot is a hosted endpoint at https://getbotornot.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 · getbotornot.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-getbotornot-botornot 'https://getbotornot.com/mcp'
What is the BotOrNot MCP server?
BotOrNot is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.getbotornot/botornot. Is a trading bot legit? Sourced bot fact sheets, regulator scam records and on-chain results. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://getbotornot.com/mcp).
Is the BotOrNot MCP server safe to use?
BotOrNot scores 80 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 BotOrNot MCP server expose?
BotOrNot exposes 12 tools: check_bot, get_bot, get_report_card, get_prediction_markets, list_bots, and 7 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 831 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the BotOrNot MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to BotOrNot without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the BotOrNot MCP server still maintained?
BotOrNot is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 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 BotOrNot MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on BotOrNot, 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.