Profit for Partners
REMOTE · PROFITFORPARTNERS.COM
Partner-led growth: the six partnership types and the vocabulary of partner deals.
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 10% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
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 Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 404. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (5)
- TLS certificate
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
Checks we could not complete (6)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Authorization in Endpoint SecurityAuthorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it.
- Schema quality in Schema Quality & AI Usability (scores 0 for this)Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).
- Tool coverage in Tool Coverage (scores 0 for this)Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.
- Tool safety in Tool Safety (scores 0 for this)Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.
- Capabilities in Capabilities (scores 0 for this)Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.
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.
- 1 Oct 26 0
- HSTS header: fail → pass ▲ security
- HTTPS: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
- Transport: Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 404. security
- 30 Sept 26 0
- HTTPS: pass → fail ▼ security
- HSTS header: pass → fail ▼ security
- Transport: Transport check failed: the endpoint responded but didn't complete an MCP handshake over streamable-http. security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the whole tool list to see what that exposes. security
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 23 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.03 → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the whole tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 22 Sept 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 21 Sept 26 0
First indexed and scored.
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://profitforpartners.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=profitforpartners.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 19 Sept 2026 | 18 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 5b91c948b082b43452c33d3c38f820346f1 |
| SANs: profitforpartners.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 profitforpartners.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| profitforpartners.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 404 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://profitforpartners.com/api/mcp | HTTP error | 404 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://profitforpartners.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://profitforpartners.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 →
get_partnership_types ~41
The six partnership types, each with what it is and what it costs in coordination. Read this before advising anyone on which kind of partner to go after.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_playbook ~39
What the free Partner Playbook covers, who it is for, and where to get it. Also the Partner Pack, which is the execution layer.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_partnership_glossary ~84
Search the partnership glossary: what a term means in partner-led growth, and which terms relate to it. Covers commissions, attribution, the six partnership types and the flywheel stages.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Max results, default 10 |
| query | string | – | A term or part of one, e.g. attribution, revenue share, collaborator |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Profit for Partners MCP server?
Profit for Partners is a hosted endpoint at https://profitforpartners.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 · profitforpartners.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-profitforpartners-profitforpartners 'https://profitforpartners.com/api/mcp'
What is the Profit for Partners MCP server?
Profit for Partners is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.profitforpartners/profitforpartners. Partner-led growth: the six partnership types and the vocabulary of partner deals. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://profitforpartners.com/api/mcp).
Is the Profit for Partners MCP server safe to use?
Profit for Partners scores 25 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 Profit for Partners MCP server expose?
Profit for Partners exposes 3 tools: search_partnership_glossary, get_partnership_types, get_playbook. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 164 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Profit for Partners MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for Profit for Partners. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the Profit for Partners MCP server still maintained?
Profit for Partners 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 Profit for Partners MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 5 checks on Profit for Partners, covering TLS certificate, HTTPS, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 1 more. 6 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Profit for Partners: Authorization, Schema quality, Stability, Tool coverage and 2 more. 5 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. 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.