Opafex
REMOTE · OPAFEX.COM
Helps UK small business owners decide where AI fits: what to automate first, data checks, payback.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category AI and Machine Learning
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 Security83
- 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 is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability62
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1581 tokens (~316/item across 5 items; 5 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 Management73
- Stability observed for 22 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 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 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 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.
- 3 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.
- 1 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.
- 30 Oct 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.
- 28 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.
- 25 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.
- 23 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.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 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://opafex.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=opafex.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 31 Oct 2026 | 29 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 53eeba7a924e225e545a7c45c0a076325a3 |
| SANs: opafex.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 secure
Validation of opafex.com. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| opafex.com. | present | 32996 | 8 | Verified |
| opafex.com. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
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; includeSubDomains |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://js.stripe.com https://*.js.stripe.com https://app.opafex.com https://va.vercel-scripts.com https://vercel.live; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://fonts.googleapis.com; font-src 'self' data: https://fonts.gstatic.com https://vercel.live; img-src 'self' data: blob: https:; connect-src 'self' https://app.opafex.com wss://app.opafex.com https://api.stripe.com https://*.stripe.com https://*.vercel-insights.com https://va.vercel-scripts.com https://vercel.live wss://ws-us3.pusher.com; frame-src 'self' https://js.stripe.com https://*.js.stripe.com https://hooks.stripe.com https://checkout.stripe.com https://app.opafex.com https://cal.com https://player.vimeo.com https://www.youtube-nocookie.com https://www.youtube.com https://vercel.live; frame-ancestors 'self'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self' https://app.opafex.com https://checkout.stripe.com; object-src 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=(), browsing-topics=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://opafex.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://opafex.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://opafex.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 →
assess_automation_opportunities Find what to automate first ~527
Works out what a small business should automate first, from how it runs today, instead of a generic list of AI tools. Use when an owner asks how AI can help their business, where to start, what is worth it versus hype, or how to get good people off admin. Map what the owner has said onto the options and leave out anything they have not said. Returns the best-fitting approaches with the reasons, what to check first, a small first step, and the questions still worth asking.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputs | string | – | What goes out to your clients? Options: documents = "Reports, proposals and quotes"; answers = "Answers by email, chat and phone"; jobs = "Job sheets and site records"; internal = "Not much leaves th… |
| producers | string | – | Who produces the work that goes out? Options: founder = "Me, mostly"; professionals = "Fee-earners, each doing their own"; admin = "An admin or operations team"; field = "Whoever is on site". |
| prompting | string | – | What made you start looking? Options: answering = "We answer the same questions daily"; admin = "Good people are doing admin"; field = "Site work comes back on paper"; unsure = "Nobody here knows whe… |
| retyping | string | – | Where does information get retyped? Options: systems = "Between two systems"; paper = "Off paper and photos"; inbox = "Out of the inbox"; none = "Nowhere obvious". |
| sector | string | – | The firm's sector. plumbing-electrical-and-other-trades = plumbers, electricians, heating engineers, window fitters and other trades working on customers' jobs; construction = contractors and constru… |
| software | string | – | Which systems do you run the business on? Options: mainstream = "Microsoft or Google, plus a CRM"; industry = "An industry system and spreadsheets"; spreadsheets = "Spreadsheets and email"; bespoke =… |
| teamSize | string | – | Number of people in the firm. |
| wand | string | – | Which task would you never do again? Options: chasing = "Chasing people for information"; writing = "Writing the same document again"; answering = "Answering the same question again"; writeup = "Writ… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_ai_data_protection Check before client data goes into AI ~224
Lists what a UK firm should check before client or staff information goes into an AI tool, under UK GDPR, ordered by what matters most for that tool and that data. Use when an owner asks if they can put client information into ChatGPT, whether ChatGPT or Copilot is GDPR compliant for their business, what to do about staff pasting customer details into AI, or what to ask an AI supplier. Returns questions to ask with the reason for each, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | array | yes | What would go in. special_category = health, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and similar; criminal_records = criminal offence data such as background checks. |
| regulated | boolean | – | True if the firm is regulated by a professional or financial regulator. |
| tool | string | yes | personal_account = a personal or free login to a general AI chat tool; business_plan = a business or team plan of one; built_into_software = AI features inside software the firm already uses; special… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
draft_ai_policy Draft an AI policy for a small firm ~203
Drafts a one-page AI use policy for a small UK firm: approved tools, what must never be pasted in, human checking, telling clients, and who is responsible. Use when an owner asks whether they need an AI policy, what to put in one, or how to stop staff pasting client details into AI tools. Returns the clauses and the steps to take before adopting it. A starting draft, not legal advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | array | yes | What information staff might put into AI tools. Use no_personal_data if none. |
| regulated | boolean | – | True if the firm is regulated by a professional or financial regulator. |
| teamSize | string | – | Number of people in the firm. |
| uses | array | yes | What staff use or will use AI for. drafting_and_research; client_communication = drafting emails or letters to clients; meeting_notes = recording or transcribing meetings; decisions_about_people = sc… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
estimate_automation_payback Will automating it pay for itself? ~229
Works out whether automating a task pays for itself, from the owner's own hours, headcount, hourly cost and supplier quote, with every assumption stated and time for checking the output deducted. Use when an owner asks if an AI tool or automation is worth the money, how long it takes to pay back, or how to estimate the return before committing. Ask the owner for the numbers rather than guessing them.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| automatableShare | string | yes | How much of the task could a tool do? small = a quarter; about_half; most = around 70%. If unsure, use small. |
| hourlyCost | number | yes | What an hour of those people's time costs the firm, in pounds. |
| hoursPerWeekPerPerson | number | yes | Hours a week one person spends on the task. |
| monthlyToolCost | number | – | The supplier's monthly price in pounds, from the owner's own quote. |
| people | integer | yes | How many people do the task. |
| setupCost | number | – | One-off setup cost in pounds, including the team's time to learn it. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_sector_playbook What AI does in your sector ~171
Describes how a specific type of UK firm uses AI: what gets drafted, chased or checked, what to look for in a tool, and the questions firms in that sector ask. Use when an owner or partner in accountancy, recruitment, a law firm, financial planning, insurance broking, an estate or letting agency, construction or a trade such as plumbing or electrical work asks how firms like theirs use AI. Use other for any other small business.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | string | yes | The firm's sector. plumbing-electrical-and-other-trades = plumbers, electricians, heating engineers, window fitters and other trades working on customers' jobs; construction = contractors and constru… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Opafex MCP server?
Opafex is a hosted endpoint at https://opafex.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 · opafex.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-opafex-business-automation 'https://opafex.com/api/mcp'
What is the Opafex MCP server?
Opafex is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.opafex/business-automation. Helps UK small business owners decide where AI fits: what to automate first, data checks, payback. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://opafex.com/api/mcp).
Is the Opafex MCP server safe to use?
Opafex scores 83 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 Opafex MCP server expose?
Opafex exposes 5 tools: assess_automation_opportunities, get_sector_playbook, check_ai_data_protection, draft_ai_policy, estimate_automation_payback. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,354 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Opafex MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Opafex without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Opafex MCP server still maintained?
Opafex 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.