Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

OI AI Adoption

REMOTE · OPERATIVE-INTELLIGENCE.COM

Advice on bringing AI into work processes, with sourced effects, risks and rules for SI, HR, DE, AT

+3 this week 80 Trust /100

Last scanned (13 hours ago)

Scores higher than 81% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.

Category AI and Machine Learning

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
  • 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2232 tokens (~279/item across 8 items; 8 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 Management70
  • Stability observed for 21 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage91
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 73% 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 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 9 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
What we tested

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 →

Changelog

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 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.

  • 3 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.

  • 1 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.

  • 29 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.

  • 27 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.

  • 25 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.

  • 23 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.

  • 21 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

Diagnostics

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://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=operative-intelligence.com CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US 9 Oct 2026 7 Jan 2027 ECDSA 256 ECDSA-SHA384 52da5170db8c94c252cd8e14b184bd0fd38
SANs: operative-intelligence.com, www.operative-intelligence.com
CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US 3 Sept 2025 2 Sept 2028 ECDSA 384 ECDSA-SHA384 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115
CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US 13 May 2026 2 Sept 2032 ECDSA 384 ECDSA-SHA384 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a
CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US 13 May 2026 2 Sept 2032 ECDSA 384 SHA256-RSA 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd

Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of operative-intelligence.com. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. Trust anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
com. DS published 19718 13 Verified
operative-intelligence.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
content-security-policy default-src 'self'; script-src 'self'; style-src 'self'; img-src 'self' data:; font-src 'self'; connect-src 'self'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self'; frame-ancestors 'self'
x-content-type-options nosniff
x-frame-options SAMEORIGIN
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://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption HTTPS enforced 301 https://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption
MCP tools · 8 exposed · ~1,766 tokens

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 →

Tool Tokens
adoption_find_patterns ~685

Advises on using AI in a process the user describes, from a curated knowledge base with sources. The caller passes the description, the task that best matches it and the process properties it states; the server selects deterministically and does not use a language model. The result puts questions to ask first (ask_first) at the top, then one recommended way as a workflow (recommendation: how it would work, what it brings with sourced effects only, what is needed, what to watch out for, a first step), at most two alternatives, and an internal part with ids, evidence levels and sources. For a general question without a concrete process, task general_question returns two business questions and no recommendation yet; with user_unsure true it returns simpler questions and example tasks.

NameTypeReqDescription
descriptionstringyesThe user's description of the process, unchanged
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.
process_typestring–Optional filter by process type
propertiesobject–Process properties the description states; leave out what it does not say
taskstring–The task that best matches the description. One of: general_question: a general question without a concrete process (for example how to introduce AI in the business); voice_entry: Entering data into…
user_unsureboolean–Only for task general_question: true after the user said they do not know; returns simple questions and example tasks

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

adoption_get_pattern ~162

Returns the user-facing recommendation for one pattern (workflow, sourced effects, needs, risks, a first step) and, in an internal part, the full pattern with every claim resolved to its sources (title, publisher, URL, date read, location) and evidence level, or marked as having no source. The internal part answers questions such as what the advice is based on.

NameTypeReqDescription
idstringyesPattern id, e.g. P01
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.
sectionsarray–Sections of the internal part to return; when left out: approaches, prerequisites, effect, risks, compliance

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

adoption_get_regulations ~120

Returns the EU and national provisions in the regulation register for the chosen country, optionally only those linked to one pattern, each with what it requires in plain words, the article, the date checked and a link to the official text.

NameTypeReqDescription
countrystringyesCountry: SI, AT, DE or HR
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.
pattern_idstring–Only provisions linked to this pattern

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

adoption_list_process_types ~81

Returns the six process types of the knowledge base (data capture, communication, documents, planning, control, knowledge) with a definition and the ids of the adoption patterns of each type.

NameTypeReqDescription
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

assess_ai_readiness ~124

Scores the answers from get_readiness_questions with fixed rules: a level from 0 to 4 per area, the rule behind each limit, the gaps found and a next step for each gap. Unanswered areas are reported as not assessed. The result is a self-assessment.

NameTypeReqDescription
answersobjectyesAnswers keyed by question id, each value an option id from get_readiness_questions
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

estimate_ai_costs ~371

Estimates the costs of introducing AI, shown separately as external costs (contractor, DPIA, legal review, AI literacy training), internal staff time, licences per month and operations per month (hosting, model usage, maintenance), and the payback period in three savings scenarios. Public data with source and retrieval date: Eurostat labour costs (for internal staff time only), published licence, hosting and model price lists, the ECB exchange rate, and savings effects from four published studies. Amounts without a reliable public source are inputs; when they are missing, the result lists them and does not assume values. Also names, per country (SI, AT, DE, HR), where to check current public funding calls for digitalisation and AI; it gives no amounts and does not say whether any call is open.

NameTypeReqDescription
complianceobject––
countrystring–ISO country code: SI, AT, DE or HR; otherwise the EU average
externalobject––
hostingobject––
internal_hourly_cost_eurnumber––
internal_hoursobject––
internal_it_hourly_cost_eurnumber––
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.
licenceobject––
maintenance_eur_per_monthnumber––
model_usageobject––
own_savings_sharenumber–Own estimate of the share of process time saved; replaces the study
process_hours_per_weeknumberyesHours per week currently spent on the process
task_typestring–Type of work, to apply the effect measured in a published study

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_readiness_questions ~90

Returns the self-assessment questions on AI readiness in four areas (data, processes, people, compliance), each with its id, the reason it is asked and the allowed answer options. Answers are option ids, not free text.

NameTypeReqDescription
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

plan_ai_rollout ~133

Returns a phased rollout plan (discovery, pilot, rollout, operations) with tasks, roles in RACI form, risks and indicators for the chosen implementation pattern. When readiness answers are given, preparation tasks for areas at level 0 or 1 are added to the discovery phase.

NameTypeReqDescription
answersobject–Answers keyed by question id, each value an option id from get_readiness_questions
langstring–Language of the result: sl, en, de or hr. Texts not yet translated are returned in English and marked in the result.
patternstringyesImplementation pattern

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the OI AI Adoption MCP server?

OI AI Adoption is a hosted endpoint at https://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption, 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 · operative-intelligence.com

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http com-operative-intelligence-ai-adoption 'https://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption'
Common questions

What is the OI AI Adoption MCP server?

OI AI Adoption is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.operative-intelligence/ai-adoption. Advice on bringing AI into work processes, with sourced effects, risks and rules for SI, HR, DE, AT. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://operative-intelligence.com/ai-adoption).

Is the OI AI Adoption MCP server safe to use?

OI AI Adoption 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 OI AI Adoption MCP server expose?

OI AI Adoption exposes 8 tools: get_readiness_questions, assess_ai_readiness, estimate_ai_costs, plan_ai_rollout, adoption_list_process_types, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,766 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the OI AI Adoption MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to OI AI Adoption without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

Is the OI AI Adoption MCP server still maintained?

OI AI Adoption 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 OI AI Adoption MCP server?

VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on OI AI Adoption, 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.