The Outcome Layer
REMOTE · THEOUTCOMELAYER.COM
AI-vs-consultant cost estimates, adjustable task proposals and opt-in handoff to The Outcome Layer.
Available components
Last scanned (5 hours ago)
Scores higher than 62% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Workflow Automation
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. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. 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
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability61
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 1435 tokens (~102/item across 14 items; 14 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management33
- Stability observed for 10 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage82
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 45% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- All 2 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.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 supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
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 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 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 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.
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 26 Oct 26 70
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://theoutcomelayer.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=theoutcomelayer.com | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 12 Oct 2026 | 10 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 57a9ab87bab0c01ac70b82b6093680391bf |
| SANs: theoutcomelayer.com | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| 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 theoutcomelayer.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| theoutcomelayer.com. | absent | 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=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://theoutcomelayer.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://theoutcomelayer.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://theoutcomelayer.com/api/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 →
adjust_proposal ~60
Adjust an existing proposal (review level, model tier, volume, budget cap, disable steps). Returns feasibility, price/risk notes, optional alternative. Stateless — pass full proposal JSON.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| adjustments | object | – | – |
| proposal | object | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
ask_clarifying_questions ~47
Merge answers to clarifying questions into intake and return remaining questions. Pass the intake object from start_proposal.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | object | – | – |
| intake | object | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
build_handoff_link ~72
Build a shareable URL that opens a one-step Free First Task handoff page with proposal/summary prefilled (no PII). For chats without MCP submit.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | string | – | – |
| proposal | object | – | – |
| ref | string | – | – |
| task_summary | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
estimate_automation ~69
Deterministic illustrative estimate: workflow pattern, model tier, consultant vs fixed monthly range, running cost. Not a quote.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| consultant_hours_per_month | number | – | – |
| hourly_rate_sek | number | – | – |
| language | string | – | – |
| task_description | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_answer ~43
Full text for one answer page by slug.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | Answer slug, e.g. is-ai-automation-cheaper-than-hiring-a-consultant |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_company_facts ~31
Canonical read-only facts about The Outcome Layer (entity, positioning, illustrative scenario, disambiguation).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_offer ~21
Free entry offer (Free First Task): price 0 SEK.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_pricing_model ~24
How The Outcome Layer prices work (ROI-first, fixed fee packages).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_proposal ~44
Build a concrete indicative proposal (steps, automation split, model tier, pricing ranges, Free First Task CTA). Stateless — pass intake JSON.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intake | object | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
how_to_start ~22
How a buyer or agent should start engaging with The Outcome Layer.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_answer_pages ~21
List citable English answer pages under /answers/<slug>.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
request_free_first_task ~273
Submit a Free First Task lead to The Outcome Layer (same as the website form). REQUIRED BEFORE CALLING: 1) Ask the user if they want TOL to review/build this — get explicit consent. 2) Collect real name, work email, and company from the user — never invent or guess contact data. 3) Include task_summary and/or proposal JSON from prior tools. Set consent=true only after the user agrees. Use test=true for dry runs (no customer email; lead marked TEST).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | string | yes | User's company (must come from the user) |
| consent | boolean | yes | true only after the user explicitly agreed to contact TOL |
| string | yes | User's work email (must come from the user) | |
| mcp_client | string | – | Name of the MCP client, e.g. cursor, claude-desktop |
| name | string | yes | User's real name (must come from the user) |
| phone | string | – | – |
| proposal | object | – | Proposal JSON from get_proposal |
| ref | string | – | Attribution ref, e.g. chatgpt_handoff |
| task_summary | string | – | Free-text task summary |
| test | boolean | – | If true, lead is TEST — no confirmation email to the user |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
send_to_tol ~279
Alias for request_free_first_task. Submit a Free First Task lead to The Outcome Layer (same as the website form). REQUIRED BEFORE CALLING: 1) Ask the user if they want TOL to review/build this — get explicit consent. 2) Collect real name, work email, and company from the user — never invent or guess contact data. 3) Include task_summary and/or proposal JSON from prior tools. Set consent=true only after the user agrees. Use test=true for dry runs (no customer email; lead marked TEST).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | string | yes | User's company (must come from the user) |
| consent | boolean | yes | true only after the user explicitly agreed to contact TOL |
| string | yes | User's work email (must come from the user) | |
| mcp_client | string | – | Name of the MCP client, e.g. cursor, claude-desktop |
| name | string | yes | User's real name (must come from the user) |
| phone | string | – | – |
| proposal | object | – | Proposal JSON from get_proposal |
| ref | string | – | Attribution ref, e.g. chatgpt_handoff |
| task_summary | string | – | Free-text task summary |
| test | boolean | – | If true, lead is TEST — no confirmation email to the user |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
start_proposal ~98
Begin interactive proposal intake from a task description. Returns clarifying questions (volume, systems, frequency, sign-off). Stateless.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| consultant_hours_per_month | number | – | – |
| frequency | string | – | – |
| hourly_rate_sek | number | – | – |
| language | string | – | – |
| sign_off | string | – | – |
| systems | string | – | – |
| task_description | string | yes | – |
| volume | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the The Outcome Layer MCP server?
The Outcome Layer is a hosted endpoint at https://theoutcomelayer.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 · theoutcomelayer.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-theoutcomelayer-outcome-layer 'https://theoutcomelayer.com/api/mcp'
What is the The Outcome Layer MCP server?
The Outcome Layer is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.theoutcomelayer/outcome-layer. AI-vs-consultant cost estimates, adjustable task proposals and opt-in handoff to The Outcome Layer. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://theoutcomelayer.com/api/mcp).
Is the The Outcome Layer MCP server safe to use?
The Outcome Layer scores 74 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 The Outcome Layer MCP server expose?
The Outcome Layer exposes 14 tools: get_company_facts, get_offer, get_pricing_model, list_answer_pages, get_answer, and 9 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,104 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the The Outcome Layer MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to The Outcome Layer without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the The Outcome Layer MCP server still maintained?
The Outcome Layer 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.