Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for unsupported clients
REMOTE · TEXTFORAGENTS.COM
Out-of-band elicitation answers for unsupported clients. Form $0.25, URL $0.50.
Available components
Last scanned (14 hours ago)
Scores higher than 44% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Developer Tools
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 fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 3 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → 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 & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability48
- AI-judged instruction clarity (poor).Fail
- Tool/resource definitions use about 195 tokens (~65/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management23
- Stability check failed: schema churn in the 13 days we've observed: 0 tool removals, 1 breaking changes, 0 auth/transport breaks, 0 additions. See how to fix → Fail
Tool Coverage67
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 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 (12)
- TLS certificate
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
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 fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 3 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 16 to 19.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 9 to 12.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 2 to 6.
- 28 Oct 26 −2
- Stability: 0.13 → fail ▼ security
- A breaking change shipped without a version bump: still 1.0.0 ▼ security
- Tool “bridge_poll” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 51 → 65 ▼ functional
- “bridge_poll” added a required parameter “account_token”, so existing callers break ▼ functional
- “bridge_poll” added a required parameter “session_id”, so existing callers break ▼ functional
- Schema quality: fair → poor functional
- “bridge_poll” added an optional parameter “request_state” cosmetic
- 25 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.
- 24 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 23 Oct 26 60
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://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=textforagents.com | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 15 Oct 2026 | 13 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 66d021cf7bcd281266ac6de4cea43642f85 |
| SANs: textforagents.com, www.textforagents.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 textforagents.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| textforagents.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'; frame-ancestors 'none'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
| permissions-policy | interest-cohort=(), geolocation=(), microphone=(), camera=(), payment=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/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 →
bridge_create_ask ~71
Create a bridged elicitation ask. Requires account_token. Trial and plan-included asks run here; paid asks collect over the HTTP x402 surface.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_token | string | yes | – |
| era | string | yes | – |
| params | object | yes | – |
| session_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
bridge_poll ~78
Poll a bridged ask for its era-shaped result (account token + ask token + session binding required; same operator-isolation gate as the HTTP poll).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_token | string | yes | – |
| ask_id | string | yes | – |
| request_state | string | – | – |
| session_id | string | yes | – |
| token | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
bridge_unsupported_error ~46
The per-era unsupported-ask error this product replaces (-32601 for 2025 eras, -32021 for 2026-07).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| era | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server?
Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… is a hosted endpoint at https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/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 · textforagents.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported 'https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp'
What is the Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server?
Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.textforagents/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients. Out-of-band elicitation answers for unsupported clients. Form $0.25, URL $0.50. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp).
Is the Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server safe to use?
Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… scores 62 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 Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server expose?
Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… exposes 3 tools: bridge_create_ask, bridge_poll, bridge_unsupported_error. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 195 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server still maintained?
Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… 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 Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for… MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for…, covering TLS certificate, HTTPS, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 8 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Elicitation Bridge: out-of-band answer channel for…: Authorization. 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.