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.

Quantum Expectations

REMOTE · WWW.QUANTUM-EXPECTATIONS.COM

Quantum error-correction feasibility: success probability, qubit overhead, records, trends.

0 this week 88 Trust /100

Last scanned (6 hours ago)

Scores higher than 96% 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 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
Schema Quality & AI Usability80
  • 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 3568 tokens (~162/item across 22 items; 13 tools + 9 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 Coverage95
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 81% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
  • Structured output schemas are declared (92% 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 13 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 15 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 0
    • Stability: 0.97 → pass security
  • 4 Nov 26 0
    • Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
  • 27 Oct 26 0
    • Server version: 0.8.0 → 0.8.1 functional
    • “compute_expectation” reworded the description of “hardwareId” cosmetic
    • “compute_fault_tolerant_resources” reworded the description of “hardwareId” cosmetic
  • 23 Oct 26 0
    • The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
    • Tool “list_qldpc_codes” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “list_quops_scores” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “compare_hardware_scenarios” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “compute_expectation” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “compute_fault_tolerant_resources” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “compute_quantum_volume_rate” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “compute_required_error_rate” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “fit_historic_series” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “get_historic_series” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “list_current_quantum_computers” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “list_example_algorithms” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “list_hardware_timings” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “list_qldpc_codes” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • Tool “list_quops_scores” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
    • First check of Tool coverage: 92 functional
    • Server version: 0.7.0 → 0.8.0 functional
    • Tool “list_qldpc_codes” changed its title: qLDPC Code Catalog → qLDPC Code Catalog (Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check) cosmetic
    • Tool “list_quops_scores” changed its title: Measured QUOPS Scores → Measured QUOPS Capability Scores cosmetic
  • 2 Oct 26 +1
    • Stability: fail → pass ▲ 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
  • 16 Sept 26 0
    • Tool “compute_expectation” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “list_current_quantum_computers” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Schema quality: 2815 → 3193 ▼ functional
    • New resource “quops-scores” functional
    • Server version: 0.6.0 → 0.7.0 functional
    • New tool “list_quops_scores” functional
    • “compute_expectation” added an optional parameter “connectivity” cosmetic
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://www.quantum-expectations.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=*.quantum-expectations.com CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US 29 Sept 2026 28 Dec 2026 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA 61195f08d82ac9efbf4ee70e9e62908d5bc
SANs: *.quantum-expectations.com, quantum-expectations.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 www.quantum-expectations.com. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. Trust anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
com. DS published 19718 13 Verified
quantum-expectations.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=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload
content-security-policy default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://vercel.live https://va.vercel-scripts.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline'; img-src 'self' data:; font-src 'self' data:; connect-src 'self' https://vitals.vercel-insights.com
x-content-type-options nosniff
x-frame-options DENY
referrer-policy origin-when-cross-origin
permissions-policy camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=(), interest-cohort=()

Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →

Transports 2 probes
Transport URL Outcome Status Location
streamable-http https://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcp Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcp HTTPS enforced 308 https://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcp
MCP tools · 13 exposed · ~2,909 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
compare_hardware_scenarios ~197

Run the same circuit against multiple current SOTA hardware entries in one call so an agent can rank platforms without N sequential compute_expectation calls. Defaults to every entry in list_current_quantum_computers when hardwareIds is omitted.

NameTypeReqDescription
compDepthintegeryes–
distanceSurfaceCodenumber–Surface code distance: odd integer in [3, 31]. Required when useErrorCorrection=true and the surface code is selected; ignored when a qLDPC code is selected.
errorCorrectionCodestring–Either "surface" (default when useErrorCorrection=true) or a qLDPC code id. "surface-code" is accepted as an alias for "surface".
hardwareIdsarray–Subset of QUANTUM_COMPUTERS ids to compare. Omit to compare every entry.
numQubitsintegeryes–
useErrorCorrectionboolean––
NameTypeReqDescription
resultsarrayyes–
scenarioobjectyes–
unresolvedHardwareIdsarrayyesRequested hardwareIds that match no current-hardware entry.

No examples provided.

compute_expectation ~541

Given a quantum circuit (2-qubit error rate p, qubit count n, depth d, optional connectivity class), compute the effective error rate, success probability, and optional surface-code or qLDPC overhead. Without error correction a 2d-lattice connectivity is charged as a routing multiplier on depth (result.routingOverheadFactor); hardwareId supplies the device's class automatically. The response is self-describing (formulas, assumptions, caveats, glossary, SOTA hardware, historic series with source URLs) so an agent can reason from one call. For the inverse ("what hardware do I need?") use compute_required_error_rate; to rank multiple platforms in one call use compare_hardware_scenarios.

NameTypeReqDescription
compDepthintegeryes–
connectivitystring–Two-qubit connectivity of the device: "all-to-all" (ion transport), "reconfigurable" (atom shuttling, treated as all-to-all) or "2d-lattice" (fixed nearest-neighbour couplers, charged as a routing mu…
distanceSurfaceCodenumber–Surface code distance: odd integer in [3, 31]. Required when useErrorCorrection=true and the surface code is selected; ignored when a qLDPC code is selected.
errorCorrectionCodestring–Either "surface" (default when useErrorCorrection=true) or a qLDPC code id from list_qldpc_codes. "surface-code" is accepted as an alias for "surface".
hardwareIdstring–Alias for qubitErrorRate: resolves to the 2-qubit error rate of the given SOTA hardware entry from list_current_quantum_computers. Use this, not a generic qubitErrorRate, whenever the question names…
numQubitsintegeryes–
qubitErrorRatenumber–Per-gate 2-qubit error rate p, in (0, 0.1]. Supply exactly one of qubitErrorRate or hardwareId.
useErrorCorrectionboolean––
verboseboolean–When false, omits hardwareContext, formulas, assumptions, caveats, glossary, examples, and exampleProblems from the response — leaving only modelVersion, scenario, and result. Use for parameter sweep…
NameTypeReqDescription
assumptionsarray––
caveatsarray––
exampleProblemProvenance–––
exampleProblemsarray––
examplesarray––
formulasobject–Verbose only: formula specs keyed by name.
glossary–––
hardwareContextobject–Verbose only: current hardware, record series, timings, measured QUOPS scores.
methodology–––
modelVersionstringyesNoise-model version; bumps when a formula or constant changes.
resultobjectyes–
scenarioobjectyes–

No examples provided.

compute_fault_tolerant_resources ~514

Given an algorithm stated as (numLogicalQubits, tCount) and a physical error rate (or hardwareId), derive the full surface-code + magic-state-distillation footprint from the general laws of the Litinski lattice-surgery cost model (no per-scenario constants): distillation factory choice, tile layout, required code distance, total physical qubits, and wall-clock time. Results are reported under TWO published logical-error fits (conservative + optimistic) because they disagree by 13-268x (d=7 to d=25) - always state both. Returns an explicit `infeasible` block when no cataloged factory or code distance can satisfy the error budget. Computes numbers only: comparing against classical alternatives and concluding "should this run on a quantum computer" stays with you, the calling agent (state the caveats when you do).

NameTypeReqDescription
cycleTimeSecondsnumber–Surface-code cycle time in seconds. Default 1 µs (Litinski convention; Google 2024 measured 1.1 µs on superconducting hardware). Trapped-ion/neutral-atom cycles are orders of magnitude slower.
dataBlockstring–Data-block layout (Litinski §2): compact = fewest qubits, fast = shortest time per T gate.
hardwareIdstring–Alias for qubitErrorRate: resolves to the 2-qubit error rate of the given SOTA hardware entry from list_current_quantum_computers. Use this, not a generic qubitErrorRate such as 0.001, whenever the q…
numLogicalQubitsintegeryesNumber of logical data qubits the algorithm needs.
qubitErrorRatenumber–Physical 2-qubit error rate p in (0, 0.1]. Supply exactly one of qubitErrorRate or hardwareId.
tCountintegeryesTotal number of T gates (magic states consumed). Convention: state Toffoli-counted algorithms in T gates before calling (1 Toffoli ≈ 4–7 T depending on decomposition).
targetSuccessProbabilitynumber–Target end-to-end success probability. The failure budget (1 − target) is split evenly between T-state error and logical (memory/surgery) error, matching Litinski §4.
NameTypeReqDescription
assumptionsarrayyes–
caveatsarrayyes–
effectiveStepsPerTGatenumber|nullyes–
factory–yes–
formulasobjectyes–
infeasible–yesNon-null when the scenario is infeasible as modeled: no cataloged factory meets the T-error budget (factory and layout are then null) or no distance up to the cap meets it under either fit (per-fit d…
layout–yes–
results–yesBoth fits bracket the model uncertainty; report both.
scenarioobjectyes–
sourcesarrayyes–
totalTimeStepsnumber|nullyes–

No examples provided.

compute_quantum_volume_rate ~233

Compute the Quantum Volume Rate (QV/second): QVR = V_Q / (log2(V_Q) * t_2Q + t_meas). First-order estimate of how fast a device prepares one QV-sized square circuit (one native 2Q gate per QV layer + one end-of-circuit measurement). OVERSTATES achievable rate: real compilation inflates the 2Q-gate count per layer; omits reset/SPAM, mid-circuit measurement, and classical-control latency. For a production throughput metric, see IBM's CLOPS (arXiv:2110.14108).

NameTypeReqDescription
quantumVolumeintegeryesQuantum volume V_Q (integer ≥ 2, e.g. 64 for a depth-log2=6 square circuit).
t2QSecondsnumberyesNative 2-qubit gate time in seconds (e.g. 60e-9 for a 60 ns CZ).
tMeasurementSecondsnumberyesEnd-of-circuit measurement/readout time in seconds (e.g. 5e-3 for 5 ms).
NameTypeReqDescription
assumptionsarrayyes–
caveatsarrayyes–
formulastringyes–
inputsobjectyes–
qvrPerSecondnumberyes–
unitstringyes–

No examples provided.

compute_required_error_rate ~256

Inverse of compute_expectation. Given a circuit (numQubits, compDepth) and an acceptable effective error rate, return the required per-gate logical error rate (requiredLogicalErrorRatePerGate: a number, or null only when the target is genuinely unreachable; never 0) and, for every EC option (no-EC, surface-code per distance, every qLDPC code), the required physical error rate plus the subset of current SOTA hardware that already qualifies. An option whose inverse lands above the code threshold is capped at min(MAX_P, threshold) and carries a `note` (any sub-threshold p satisfies it); `unreachableReason` is reserved for genuinely unreachable options. Answers "what hardware do I need to run this algorithm?".

NameTypeReqDescription
acceptableErrorRatePercentnumberyesUpper bound on the effective error rate, as a percent. Default website convention is 33 (i.e. ≤33% effective error is "acceptable").
compDepthintegeryesCircuit depth d (sequential 2-qubit gate layers). Accepts values up to 1e13.
numQubitsintegeryesNumber of logical qubits n in the circuit.
NameTypeReqDescription
assumptionsarrayyes–
caveatsarrayyes–
formulasobjectyes–
noECobjectyes–
qldpcCodesarrayyesOne option per cataloged qLDPC code.
requiredLogicalErrorRatePerGatenumber|nullyesPer-gate logical error rate every option must deliver; null only when the target is unreachable, never 0.
scenarioobjectyes–
surfaceCodearrayyesOne option per odd surface-code distance.

No examples provided.

fit_historic_series ~234

Fit a log-linear trend (ln(value) = slope * year + intercept) to one historic series — fidelity or qubit-count — for one hardware type. Atomic primitive: compose with list_current_quantum_computers, compute_required_error_rate, or your own modelling to answer "when might hardware reach X?". residualStdDev is the BIASED (maximum-likelihood) RMS — divides by n, not (n - 2); on small series (n ≈ 3–5) inflate by √(n / (n - 2)) before building confidence intervals.

NameTypeReqDescription
hardwareTypestringyesHardware platform as used by get_historic_series.
seriesTypestringyesWhich historic series to fit: "fidelity" (2-qubit gate error rate) or "qubit-count" (physical qubits).
targetValuenumber–Optional. When supplied, the response includes yearAtTargetValue — the extrapolated year the fit crosses this value (error rate for fidelity series, qubit count for qubit-count series). Null if slope…
NameTypeReqDescription
doublingPeriodYearsnumber|nullyesNon-null iff slope > 0.
formulastringyes–
halvingPeriodYearsnumber|nullyesNon-null iff slope < 0.
hardwareTypestringyes–
interceptnumberyes–
modelstringyes–
nPointsintegeryes–
residualStdDevnumberyesBiased (divide-by-n) RMS of the ln residuals.
seriesTypestringyes–
slopenumberyes–
yearAtTargetValuenumber|null–Present only when targetValue was supplied.
yearRangearrayyes–

No examples provided.

get_agent_brief ~41

Return the plain-text site brief describing scope, assumptions, the honesty clause, and the API contract. Mirrors the /agent.txt document served by the website.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_historic_series ~118

Return the full historic time series — either two-qubit gate error rates ("fidelity") or physical qubit counts ("qubit-count") — broken down by hardware type. Each datapoint carries a source URL. Use this to extrapolate trends — "when might hardware reach X?" — or pair with fit_historic_series for a log-linear fit on one hardware type.

NameTypeReqDescription
seriesTypestringyes"fidelity" → 2-qubit gate error rates; "qubit-count" → physical qubit counts.
NameTypeReqDescription
itemsarrayyesOne series per hardware type.

No examples provided.

list_current_quantum_computers ~106

Return the representative-entry table of current SOTA quantum computers (id, hardware type, physical qubit count, 2-qubit error rate, connectivity class with a note on the coupling graph, source URL). Same data that powers the website's "Current Quantum Computers" table. For the model's capability prediction per entry in QUOPS units, read hardwareContext.currentQuantumComputers[].modelCapability from compute_expectation; for measured scores, list_quops_scores.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
itemsarrayyesOne representative entry per hardware type.

No examples provided.

list_example_algorithms ~132

Return the curated list of example quantum algorithms with published resource estimates (qubit count, depth/gate count, source paper URL). Useful for comparing what algorithms need vs. what hardware can deliver. Each entry carries a `provenance` field: 'published-circuit' means the figure is reproducible from the source, 'attested-estimate' means the source withholds the circuit and the figure rests on the authors' attestation, with a `provenanceNote` giving the specifics. Carry that caveat whenever you quote an attested figure; do not present it as equivalently sourced.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
itemsarrayyesCurated algorithms with published resource estimates.

No examples provided.

list_hardware_timings ~136

Return per-platform gate-cycle timings (2Q gate time, readout time, in SI seconds) plus the testbed they were measured on (`representativeDevice`) and the native 2Q gate name, with source URLs. Joins list_current_quantum_computers via `hardwareType`, but the numbers are BEST-CASE DEMONSTRATIONS from small testbeds, not measurements on the joined devices, which run their gates and array readout orders of magnitude slower. Use for ratio analysis or as optimistic lower-bound inputs to runtime estimates and compute_quantum_volume_rate, and say so when you quote a runtime.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
itemsarrayyesBest-case gate and readout times per platform.

No examples provided.

list_qldpc_codes ~243

Return the catalog of supported qLDPC (quantum low-density parity-check) error-correction codes (id, label, family, n, k, d, circuitLevelDistance, ancilla counts, roundsPerLogicalOp, threshold, fitCoefficients {c0, c1, c2}, logicalErrorExponent [alpha = d_circ/2], source URLs, provenance, caveats). The per-block, per-syndrome-cycle logical error rate is p^alpha * exp(c0 + c1*p + c2*p^2) for p <= threshold (the source paper's own fitting form; c1 = c2 = 0 means a plain power law). `provenance` names the table or section each constant was read from. `caveats` is an array of source-level qualifications on the entry's constants (loose distance bounds, values a source marks as assumed, numbers that differ between sources); empty when the sources carry none. Read it before quoting a code's logical error rate as firm. Use a code's `id` as the `errorCorrectionCode` input to `compute_expectation`.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
itemsarrayyesSupported qLDPC codes.

No examples provided.

list_quops_scores ~158

Return the measured QUOPS (quantum universal operation performance system, a cross-platform capability benchmark) scores (arXiv:2609.12146): per device, the largest random universal circuit size executed at polarization >= 1/sqrt(e) inside the cone w^2 <= s <= w^3, with width, QUOPS rate, architecture (physical, physical-postselected, logical) and source URL, plus the utility-scale targets in the same unit (RSA-2048 and FeMoco). These are measurements, the yardstick the site's own model is checked against: compare them with modelCapability.quopsEquivalent on the compute_expectation hardware context. Vendor and device names appear here because this table is agent-facing only.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
admissibleCone–yes–
definitionstringyes–
polarizationThresholdnumberyes–
scoresarrayyes–
targetsarrayyes–

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Quantum Expectations MCP server?

Quantum Expectations is a hosted endpoint at https://www.quantum-expectations.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 · www.quantum-expectations.com

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http com-quantum-expectations-quantum-expectations 'https://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcp'
Common questions

What is the Quantum Expectations MCP server?

Quantum Expectations is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.quantum-expectations/quantum-expectations. Quantum error-correction feasibility: success probability, qubit overhead, records, trends. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.quantum-expectations.com/api/mcp).

Is the Quantum Expectations MCP server safe to use?

Quantum Expectations scores 88 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 Quantum Expectations MCP server expose?

Quantum Expectations exposes 13 tools: compute_expectation, compute_required_error_rate, compute_fault_tolerant_resources, compare_hardware_scenarios, list_current_quantum_computers, and 8 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,909 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the Quantum Expectations MCP server require authentication?

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

Is the Quantum Expectations MCP server still maintained?

Quantum Expectations 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 Quantum Expectations MCP server?

VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Quantum Expectations, 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.