Namespace guard for merged toolboxes
REMOTE · TEXTFORAGENTS.COM
Pre-connection collision audit for merged MCP toolboxes, trust-graded, with signed routing receipts.
Available components
Last scanned (11 minutes ago)
Scores higher than 56% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 23 Oct 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 Security89
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, but the challenge carries no valid RFC 9728 metadata, so a client cannot discover where to get a token. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability47
- AI-judged instruction clarity (poor).Fail
- Tool/resource definitions use about 124 tokens (~31/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management3
- Stability observed for 1 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities40
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-03-26; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 23 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 22 Oct 26 67
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 23 Oct 2026 · Probed https://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/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. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| textforagents.com. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Challenged, unverified
The endpoint asked for a token, but we could not retrieve and validate the RFC 9728 metadata that tells a client how to obtain one.
| Result | Challenged, unverified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| 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=() |
Protected resource metadata
| Retrieved | No |
|---|---|
| Problem | no_resource_metadata |
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/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/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 →
audit_toolbox ~42
Pre-connection collision audit ($4.99 after one-time free trial; pass discipline applies)
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| candidate | object | yes | – |
| toolbox | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_census ~15
Latest claimed-names census
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
query_verdict ~28
Verdict query ($0.01): precomputed signed verdict
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| candidate | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_receipts ~39
Verify a receipt chain; pin chain_head to detect tail-truncation
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_head | string | – | – |
| receipts | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server?
Namespace guard for merged toolboxes is a hosted endpoint at https://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/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-namespace-guard-for-merged-too 'https://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/mcp'
What is the Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server?
Namespace guard for merged toolboxes is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.textforagents/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes. Pre-connection collision audit for merged MCP toolboxes, trust-graded, with signed routing receipts. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://textforagents.com/products/namespace-guard-for-merged-toolboxes/mcp).
Is the Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server safe to use?
Namespace guard for merged toolboxes scores 67 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 Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server expose?
Namespace guard for merged toolboxes exposes 4 tools: audit_toolbox, query_verdict, verify_receipts, get_census. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 124 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server require authentication?
Yes. Namespace guard for merged toolboxes 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 Namespace guard for merged toolboxes MCP server still maintained?
Namespace guard for merged toolboxes is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 23 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.