ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站)
REMOTE · WWW.REPORTGEM.COM
Global investment research knowledge base: 16M+ bank reports, filings, earnings calls, charts.
Available components
Last scanned (23 hours ago)
Scores higher than 85% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security94
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, advertised via RFC 9728 protected-resource metadata. Discovery is public, which costs nothing: no tool can be invoked without a token. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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
- The authorisation server offers only Dynamic Client Registration (RFC 7591), which MCP 2026-07-28 deprecated in favour of Client ID Metadata Documents. View diagnostics → Partial
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability59
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 733 tokens (~146/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 Management53
- Stability observed for 16 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage85
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 48% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% 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 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 supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
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 →
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.
- 3 Nov 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.
- 1 Nov 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.
- 30 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.
- 28 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.
- 26 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.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 −1
- Tool “get_evidence” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_filings” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_meetings” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_research” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_visuals” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
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.reportgem.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=reportgem.com | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 30 Sept 2026 | 29 Dec 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6c333b9298a40d2cfd6722751f5afa8ead5 |
| SANs: reportgem.com, www.reportgem.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.reportgem.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| reportgem.com. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Enforced and verified
The endpoint asked for a token and published valid RFC 9728 metadata describing how to get one.
| Result | Enforced and verified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
WWW-Authenticate challenge Bearer error="invalid_token", error_description="Authentication required", resource_metadata="https://www.reportgem.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"
Bearer error="invalid_token", error_description="Authentication required", resource_metadata="https://www.reportgem.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
| content-security-policy | frame-ancestors 'self'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Protected resource metadata
| Document | https://www.reportgem.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp |
|---|---|
| Retrieved | Yes |
| Resource | https://www.reportgem.com/mcp |
| Authorisation server | https://www.reportgem.com/reports/mcp/oauth |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.reportgem.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.reportgem.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.reportgem.com/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_evidence ~193
Return bounded, page-cited source excerpts, or a sequential reading window (reading_mode="sequential" with next_cursor) for whole documents; unmatched material is never presented as verified evidence. 返回有界真实摘录或可续读的连续正文窗口；不能把无匹配的资料当作已验证证据。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | string | – | next_cursor returned by the previous sequential call; pass it back unchanged |
| max_passages | integer | – | – |
| query | string | – | Claim or fact to locate in the source; optional in sequential reading mode |
| reading_mode | string | – | relevant: passages matching query; sequential: read the document in page order |
| source_id | string | yes | Source identifier returned by a search tool |
| source_type | string | yes | Source type returned by a search tool |
| start_page | – | – | Optional first page when starting a new sequential reading |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_filings ~119
Search US SEC filings and China listed-company announcements; returns verifiable internal source links. 检索美国 SEC 文件和中国公司公告，并返回可核验的内部来源链接。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_from | – | – | – |
| date_to | – | – | – |
| form_type | string | – | SEC form such as 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, 6-K, 20-F, or all |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| market | string | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Company, ticker or filing keyword |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_meetings ~107
Search global and China earnings-call transcripts and meeting notes, distinguishing body-text evidence from listing-only hits. 检索全球和中国会议纪要、业绩会记录，区分正文证据与清单命中。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_from | – | – | – |
| date_to | – | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| output_language | string | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Company, ticker, institution, industry or meeting keyword |
| region | string | – | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_research ~129
Search sell-side research reports and academic papers by company, ticker, broker, industry, theme or date; returns bounded metadata plus real excerpts when the indexed body matches. 检索研报和论文；返回有界元数据，并在已索引正文命中时返回实际摘录。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_from | – | – | Optional ISO date, YYYY-MM-DD |
| date_to | – | – | Optional ISO date, YYYY-MM-DD |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Company, ticker, industry, theme or keyword |
| sources | array | – | Source groups to search |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
search_visuals ~98
Search indexed charts, tables, industry diagrams and research-relevant images with report/page provenance. 检索研报中的图表、表格、行业示意图，返回所属研报与页码。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_from | – | – | – |
| date_to | – | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | Natural-language description of a chart, table, diagram or image |
| visual_type | string | – | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server?
ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) is a hosted endpoint at https://www.reportgem.com/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.reportgem.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-reportgem-global-research 'https://www.reportgem.com/mcp'
What is the ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server?
ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.reportgem/global-research. Global investment research knowledge base: 16M+ bank reports, filings, earnings calls, charts. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.reportgem.com/mcp).
Is the ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server safe to use?
ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) scores 82 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 ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server expose?
ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) exposes 5 tools: search_research, search_filings, search_meetings, search_visuals, get_evidence. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 646 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server require authentication?
Yes. ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server still maintained?
ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) 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 ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站) MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on ReportGem Global Research (报告驿站), 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.