# Maha Context Review (remote · www.mahastrategies.com)

Reduce supplied context and check caller-declared, source-specific exact evidence retention.

- Trust score: 85/100 (high trust)
- Change this week: +1
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-11-05

## Components

- remote · `www.mahastrategies.com`: 85/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.2`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-11-05.

- **Endpoint Security**: 80/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - 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.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 69/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (good).
  - Tool/resource definitions use about 149 tokens (~149/item across 1 items; 1 tools + 0 resources), lean.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 100/100
  - No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.
- **Tool Coverage**: 80/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 40% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 1 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### How do I install the Maha Context Review MCP server?

Maha Context Review is a hosted endpoint at https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry, 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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http com-mahastrategies-context-review 'https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-mahastrategies-context-review": {
      "url": "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "com-mahastrategies-context-review": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.com-mahastrategies-context-review]
url = "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "com-mahastrategies-context-review": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add com-mahastrategies-context-review --url 'https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  com-mahastrategies-context-review:
    url: "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "com-mahastrategies-context-review": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add com-mahastrategies-context-review -t streamable-http -u 'https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-mahastrategies-context-review": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-10-31 (score 85, +1)

- [security] Stability: 0.97 → pass

### 2026-10-29 (score 84, +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.

### 2026-10-27 (score 83, +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.

### 2026-10-24 (score 82, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-10-22 (score 81, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-10-20 (score 80, +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.

### 2026-10-18 (score 79, +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.

### 2026-10-16 (score 78, +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.

## MCP tools (1)

### `review_context_retention` (~149 tokens)

Review context retention

Select passages from explicitly supplied sanitized documents under an estimated token budget, and check whether user-declared exact evidence excerpts remain in selected passages from their specified source. No web access, storage, payments, semantic correctness guarantee, or downstream prompt capture. Do not send credentials, government IDs, payment card data, protected health information, or confidential personal records.

Input parameters:

- `documents` (array, required)
- `expectedEvidence` (array): Caller-declared exact excerpts required for this task. An empty list means completeness was not tested.
- `sanitized` (boolean, required): Confirm these are authorized, sanitized or synthetic task-specific excerpts, not restricted data.
- `task` (string, required)
- `tokenBudget` (integer, required)

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-11-05: 85
- 2026-11-04: 85
- 2026-11-03: 85
- 2026-11-02: 85
- 2026-11-01: 85
- 2026-10-31: 85
- 2026-10-30: 84
- 2026-10-29: 84
- 2026-10-28: 83
- 2026-10-27: 83
- 2026-10-26: 82
- 2026-10-25: 82
- 2026-10-24: 82
- 2026-10-23: 81
- 2026-10-22: 81
- 2026-10-21: 80
- 2026-10-20: 80
- 2026-10-19: 79
- 2026-10-18: 79
- 2026-10-17: 78
- 2026-10-16: 78
- 2026-10-15: 77
- 2026-10-14: 77
- 2026-10-13: 76
- 2026-10-12: 76
- 2026-10-10: 75
- 2026-10-07: 74
- 2026-10-04: 72
- 2026-10-03: 72
- 2026-10-02: 71

## Common questions

### What is the Maha Context Review MCP server?

Maha Context Review is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.mahastrategies/context-review. Reduce supplied context and check caller-declared, source-specific exact evidence retention. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry).

### Is the Maha Context Review MCP server safe to use?

Maha Context Review 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 Maha Context Review MCP server expose?

Maha Context Review exposes 1 tool: review_context_retention. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 149 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

### Does the Maha Context Review MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to Maha Context Review without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

### Is the Maha Context Review MCP server still maintained?

Maha Context Review 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 Maha Context Review MCP server?

VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Maha Context Review, 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.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://www.mahastrategies.com/api/mcp/context-review?channel=registry
- Website: https://www.mahastrategies.com/tools/context-review
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review/changelog.json
- Trust report (JSON): https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-mahastrategies-context-review/api-mcp-context-review