Jid: the trust API for AI agents
REMOTE · JID.COM
Verify a business before an agent pays, signs or buys: registry-cited decision and signed receipt.
Available components
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 91% 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. 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 Usability59
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2446 tokens (~349/item across 7 items; 7 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 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
- 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
- We read all 7 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 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
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 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 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.
- 30 Oct 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.
- 28 Oct 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.
- 26 Oct 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.
- 23 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.
- 21 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.
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://jid.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=jid.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 4 Oct 2026 | 2 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 68efccbedbac5f0c9b9abc206d783591b7a |
| SANs: jid.com | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| 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 jid.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| jid.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=63072000 |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://jid.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://jid.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://jid.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_email Is this e-mail really from who it says? (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, lookalike sender) ~155
Checks whether an e-mail is from who it claims. Input: the raw headers of a message (as shown by Show original or View source). Returns checks and a read (headline, recommendation engage | verify_first | do_not_engage, failed checks, lookup links): DMARC/SPF/DKIM as the receiving server recorded them, DKIM alignment with From, Reply-To going to another domain, and a From domain or display name that imitates a known business. The headers are processed in memory and never stored. Deterministic, no AI. Counts as 1 check with a key; free tier without one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| headers | string | yes | The raw message headers, as one string (the body is not needed) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| authentication | – | – | – |
| checked_at | string | – | – |
| checks | array | yes | – |
| checks_used | number | yes | – |
| from_domain | string|null | yes | – |
| note | string | yes | Terms of use for the facts |
| read | object | yes | What a person sees: headline, recommendation, failed checks and lookup links |
| reply_to_domain | string|null | – | – |
| rules_version | string | – | – |
No examples provided.
get_business_file Get a business file ~139
The Jid file for one business. Default (compact): status with its flags, identifiers, verified websites, the top facts with source and verification date, counts and the latest changes. With detail "full": every current fact with its source, verification date, next check and confidence, owner statements (labelled self-reported), possible matches and the change history.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | string | – | compact (default): the verdict, status, identifiers and top facts with sources; full: every fact with its provenance |
| id | string | yes | Jid file id from search_business, e.g. gland-pharma-limited-j9nehi |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| counts | object | – | – |
| facts_total | number | – | – |
| file_checked_at | string|null | – | – |
| full_file | object | – | – |
| id | string | yes | – |
| identifiers | array | – | – |
| identifiers_total | number | – | – |
| kind | string|null | – | – |
| location | object | – | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| note | string | yes | Terms of use for the facts |
| owner_status | string | – | claimed | public_record |
| recent_changes | array | – | – |
| status | object | yes | – |
| top_facts | array | – | – |
| url | string | yes | – |
| websites_verified | array | – | – |
No examples provided.
get_receipt Get a verification receipt ~69
Returns a stored, Ed25519-signed verification receipt by receipt_id: the inputs, decision, reasons, fact ids and value hashes, rules version and time of the check. Free; does not count as a check.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | string | yes | rcpt_... from verify_business |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | string | yes | – |
| retained_until_about | string | – | – |
| signature | object | yes | – |
| statement | object | yes | The signed statement: inputs, decision, reasons, fact ids and value hashes, rules version, time |
| url | string | yes | – |
| verify | string | – | – |
No examples provided.
qualify_counterparty Qualify a business lead or counterparty ~706
Qualifies a business that made contact (a form submission, an inquiry, an outreach reply). Input: the sender's e-mail (or the company domain), the company name if given, and the context (form type, message, stated value, stated role). Jid checks the domain (MX, SPF, DMARC, registration date over RDAP, the website), matches it to a Jid business file, reads that file's registrations, licences, filings, capital raises, loans and adverse records, and returns signals (each with source, source_url, verified_at), three scores (legitimacy, capacity, consistency, 0 to 100 with reasons), checks (each pass, fail or unknown with one line of evidence) and a read: a one-line headline ("Passed all 7 checks Jid could run. Recommendation: engage."), the recommendation (engage, verify_first, do_not_engage), the failed checks and up to 4 links to verify by hand, plus a signed receipt reference. detail "full" adds each signal's raw value, each check's lookup link and the full signed receipt. Businesses only: personal webmail or no matched business returns individual_or_unverified with no scores. A possible list match is returned as 'review', not as a finding. Counts as 2 checks with a key; free tier without one. Not intended for credit, employment, insurance or housing decisions about any person.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity | string | – | Regulated activity whose licences matter, if any |
| browser_timezone | string | – | IANA time zone reported by the submitter's browser |
| claimed_website | string | – | For vendor_claim / listing_claim: the website of the business or listing being claimed (enables the affiliation check) |
| company_name | string | – | Company name as stated by the sender |
| country | string | – | Stated country, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 |
| detail | string | – | compact (default): signals without raw values and a receipt reference; full: raw signal values and the full signed receipt |
| domain | string | – | Company domain, when no e-mail is available |
| string | – | Sender's e-mail address | |
| form_type | string | yes | What kind of submission this is |
| ip_asn | integer | – | ASN of the submitting network, to recognise hosting and VPN networks |
| ip_country | string | – | Country the submission came from, ISO alpha-2 (location consistency check) |
| ip_region | string | – | Region the submission came from (ISO 3166-2, e.g. US-CA or CA) |
| message | string | – | The submission's free text (hashed, never stored) |
| policy | string | – | How cautious `engage` is (default balanced) |
| signal | string | – | Jid Signals token (the form's jid_signal field): Jid's own reading of the visitor's location; replaces the ip_* fields when it verifies |
| site | string | – | The submitting website's domain (binds the signal token) |
| stated_country | string | – | Country the submitter stated (same as country) |
| stated_role | string | – | The sender's stated role |
| stated_value | number | – | Deal or purchase size the sender states, USD |
| summary | boolean | – | Add a short plain-English summary grounded in the signals (with an API key only) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessment | string | yes | business | individual_or_unverified |
| capacity | – | – | – |
| checked_at | string | – | – |
| checks | array | yes | – |
| checks_used | number | yes | – |
| consistency | – | – | – |
| entity | – | – | – |
| id | string | yes | – |
| legitimacy | – | – | – |
| note | string | yes | Terms of use for the facts |
| questions_to_ask | array | – | – |
| read | object | yes | What a person sees: headline, recommendation, failed checks and lookup links |
| receipt | – | – | – |
| recommendation | – | yes | engage | verify_first | do_not_engage, with the reason |
| signals | array | yes | – |
| suggested_next_step | string | – | – |
| summary | string|null | – | – |
No examples provided.
screen Should I engage? (screen a lead, sender, vendor or website) ~530
Screens a lead, sender, vendor or website and returns an engage-or-not answer. Input: any of domain, url, email, phone or company_name, the context (lead, inbound_email, partnership, vendor, purchase, marketplace_seller, agent_action), an optional amount (USD) and a policy (strict, balanced, permissive; default balanced). Returns engage (true or false), risk (low, medium, high, unknown), confidence 0 to 1, subject_type, reasons (each with source and evidence), mitigations, checks, a read (headline, recommendation engage | verify_first | do_not_engage, failed checks, lookup links) and a signed receipt_id. Deterministic, no AI in the decision, usually under a second. A possible sanctions name match returns engage=false with 'manual review', not a finding. For individuals only technical checks of the address, phone or domain run. engage is advisory. Rules: https://jid.com/screen-rules. Counts as 1 check with a key; free tier without one.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | number | – | Amount at stake, USD |
| browser_timezone | string | – | IANA time zone reported by the browser |
| company_name | string | – | Company name as stated |
| context | string | – | What engaging means here; default lead (purchase when only a url or domain is given) |
| country | string | – | Default country for a phone number without +, ISO alpha-2 |
| domain | string | – | Company domain |
| string | – | Sender e-mail address (hashed on the receipt, never stored) | |
| ip_asn | integer | – | ASN of the request's network, to recognise hosting and VPN networks |
| ip_country | string | – | Country the request came from (ISO alpha-2), for the location consistency check |
| ip_region | string | – | Region of the request (ISO 3166-2, e.g. US-CA or CA) |
| phone | string | – | Phone number, ideally in +E.164 |
| policy | string | – | strict, balanced (default) or permissive |
| signal | string | – | Jid Signals token (the form's jid_signal field): Jid's own reading of the visitor's location; replaces the ip_* fields when it verifies |
| site | string | – | The submitting website's domain (binds the signal token) |
| stated_country | string | – | Country the counterparty stated |
| url | string | – | Website or page URL (purchase checks: only the host is used) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| checked_at | string | – | – |
| checks | array | yes | – |
| checks_used | number | yes | – |
| confidence | number | yes | – |
| context | string | – | – |
| engage | boolean | yes | – |
| entity | – | – | – |
| mitigations | array | – | – |
| note | string | yes | Terms of use for the facts |
| policy | string | – | – |
| read | object | yes | What a person sees: headline, recommendation, failed checks and lookup links |
| reasons | array | yes | – |
| receipt_id | string | yes | – |
| receipt_url | string | – | – |
| risk | string | yes | low | medium | high | unknown |
| rules_url | string | – | – |
| subject_type | string | yes | – |
| summary | string | – | – |
No examples provided.
search_business Search businesses ~138
Finds Jid business files by name or by any registry number (FEI, LEI, SEC CIK, DUNS, NDC labeler code, state licence or entity number, French SIREN or SIRET). Returns candidate files with status and match evidence. For a French company pass country "FR": the SIRENE register is searched live and files are created on demand.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | – | ISO country code. "FR" also searches the French SIRENE register live (a SIREN or SIRET is looked up there anyway). |
| query | string | yes | Business name or registry number |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | string | yes | – |
| query | string | yes | – |
| results | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
verify_business Verify a business before acting ~467
Verifies a business against the registry facts Jid holds. Input: a Jid id (or a name or registry number) and, optionally, an activity, jurisdiction and amount. With an activity it returns a decision (proceed, review, stop or insufficient_data) with reasons: each names the requirement, met (true, false or unknown), the fact ids, source, verified_at and fresh_until, plus a signed receipt_id. Without an activity it returns the status and the top cited facts. Default output is compact (verdict, reasons, status, identifiers, top facts, receipt reference); detail "full" adds every cited fact and the full signed receipt. Activities: general_commerce (General commerce (default)); sell_prescription_drugs (Sell prescription drugs); manufacture_drugs (Manufacture drugs); sell_medical_devices (Sell medical devices); haul_freight (Haul freight (for-hire motor carrier)); broker_freight (Broker freight); sell_alcohol (Sell alcohol (wholesale or import)); produce_spirits (Produce distilled spirits); provide_investment_advice (Provide investment advice); accept_deposits (Accept deposits); lend (Lend); bill_medicare_medicaid (Bill Medicare or Medicaid); healthcare_supplier (Health care supplier); federal_contracting (Federal contracting); charitable_solicitation (Charitable solicitation); construction (Construction or home improvement (contractor)); operate_psilocybin_healing_center (Operate a psilocybin healing or service centre (CO, OR)).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity | string | – | What the business is about to do for you. Defaults to general_commerce when jurisdiction or amount is given. |
| amount | number | – | Transaction amount, recorded on the receipt as context only |
| currency | string | – | ISO 4217 currency of amount, default USD |
| detail | string | – | compact (default): the verdict, status, identifiers and top facts with sources; full: every fact with its provenance |
| id | string | – | Jid file id (preferred) |
| jurisdiction | string | – | US state as US-XX (for example US-CO) or an ISO country code |
| query | string | – | Name or registry number, used when no id is known |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | – | – | With an activity: the decision object; with no file matched: "insufficient_data" |
| facts_total | number | – | – |
| file | object | – | With an activity: the business the decision is about |
| file_checked_at | string|null | – | – |
| full_file | object | – | – |
| id | string | – | – |
| identifiers | array | – | – |
| identifiers_total | number | – | – |
| message | string | – | – |
| name | string | – | – |
| note | string | – | Terms of use for the facts |
| owner_status | string | – | claimed | public_record |
| query | string | – | – |
| receipt | – | – | – |
| resolved_from | – | – | – |
| result | string | – | – |
| status | object | – | – |
| top_facts | array | – | – |
| url | string | – | – |
| websites_verified | array | – | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server?
Jid: the trust API for AI agents is a hosted endpoint at https://jid.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 · jid.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-jid-jid 'https://jid.com/mcp'
What is the Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server?
Jid: the trust API for AI agents is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.jid/jid. Verify a business before an agent pays, signs or buys: registry-cited decision and signed receipt. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://jid.com/mcp).
Is the Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server safe to use?
Jid: the trust API for AI agents scores 85 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 Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server expose?
Jid: the trust API for AI agents exposes 7 tools: search_business, get_business_file, verify_business, get_receipt, qualify_counterparty, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,204 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Jid: the trust API for AI agents without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server still maintained?
Jid: the trust API for AI agents 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 Jid: the trust API for AI agents MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Jid: the trust API for AI agents, 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.