# 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.

- Trust score: 62/100 (medium)
- Change this week: +3
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-11-05

## Components

- remote · `textforagents.com`: 62/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.0`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-11-05.

- **Endpoint Security**: 63/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - 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.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 48/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (poor).
  - Tool/resource definitions use about 195 tokens (~65/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), lean.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 23/100
  - Stability check failed: schema churn in the 13 days we've observed: 0 tool removals, 1 breaking changes, 0 auth/transport breaks, 0 additions.
- **Tool Coverage**: 67/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 0% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 3 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### 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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported 'https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported": {
      "url": "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported]
url = "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported --url 'https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported:
    url: "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported -t streamable-http -u 'https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-11-04 (score 62, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 16 to 19.

### 2026-11-02 (score 61, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 9 to 12.

### 2026-10-31 (score 60, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 2 to 6.

### 2026-10-28 (score 59, −2)

- [security regression] Stability: 0.13 → fail
- [security regression] 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
- [functional regression] Schema quality: 51 → 65
- [functional regression] “bridge_poll” added a required parameter “account_token”, so existing callers break
- [functional regression] “bridge_poll” added a required parameter “session_id”, so existing callers break
- [functional] Schema quality: fair → poor
- [cosmetic] “bridge_poll” added an optional parameter “request_state”

### 2026-10-25 (score 61, +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.

### 2026-10-24 (score 60, 0)

- [functional improvement] Stability: unverified → 0.03

### 2026-10-23 (score 60)

First indexed and scored.

## MCP tools (3)

### `bridge_create_ask` (~71 tokens)

Create a bridged elicitation ask. Requires account_token. Trial and plan-included asks run here; paid asks collect over the HTTP x402 surface.

Input parameters:

- `account_token` (string, required)
- `era` (string, required)
- `params` (object, required)
- `session_id` (string, required)

### `bridge_poll` (~78 tokens)

Poll a bridged ask for its era-shaped result (account token + ask token + session binding required; same operator-isolation gate as the HTTP poll).

Input parameters:

- `account_token` (string, required)
- `ask_id` (string, required)
- `request_state` (string)
- `session_id` (string, required)
- `token` (string, required)

### `bridge_unsupported_error` (~46 tokens)

The per-era unsupported-ask error this product replaces (-32601 for 2025 eras, -32021 for 2026-07).

Input parameters:

- `era` (string, required)

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-11-05: 62
- 2026-11-04: 62
- 2026-11-03: 61
- 2026-11-02: 61
- 2026-11-01: 60
- 2026-10-31: 60
- 2026-10-30: 59
- 2026-10-29: 59
- 2026-10-28: 59
- 2026-10-27: 61
- 2026-10-26: 61
- 2026-10-25: 61
- 2026-10-24: 60
- 2026-10-23: 60

## Common questions

### 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.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://textforagents.com/products/elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/mcp
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp/changelog.json
- Trust report (JSON): https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-textforagents-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients/products-elicitation-bridge-unsupported-clients-mcp