The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP
REMOTE · WWW.THEQUIETPROTOCOL.COM
Read-only MCP server for The Quiet Protocol's engines, benchmarks, proof, and business data.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 94% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
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 Security77
- 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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability80
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 2060 tokens (~38/item across 53 items; 29 tools + 24 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management97
- Stability observed for 29 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- 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 29 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 31 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (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.
- 5 Nov 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 17 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 16 Oct 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 17 Sept 26 0
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 16 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 11 Sept 26 0
- DNSSEC: fail → pass ▲ security
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
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.thequietprotocol.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=www.thequietprotocol.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 8 Sept 2026 | 7 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 9c05f20bac3b9b4413705d237d8be263 |
| SANs: www.thequietprotocol.com | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of www.thequietprotocol.com. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| thequietprotocol.com. | DS published | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| www.thequietprotocol.com. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.thequietprotocol.com/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.thequietprotocol.com/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.thequietprotocol.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 →
select_best_engine Select Best Engine ~71
Recommend the best flagship engine to start with based on business type and the kind of problem being diagnosed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | string | yes | What the user is trying to diagnose first. |
| niche | string | yes | Business niche or vertical. |
| websiteUrl | string | – | Optional website URL if a public site exists. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| canonicalPublicUrl | string|null | yes | – |
| canonicalUrl | string|null | yes | – |
| evidenceClassification | string|null | yes | – |
| evidenceReferences | array | yes | – |
| evidenceType | string|null | yes | – |
| inputAssumptions | array | yes | – |
| limitations | array | yes | – |
| methodology | array | yes | – |
| nextStepUrl | string|null | yes | – |
| primary | object | yes | – |
| rationale | string | yes | – |
| secondary | array | yes | – |
| systemMapping | object | yes | – |
| toolId | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server?
The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP is a hosted endpoint at https://www.thequietprotocol.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 · www.thequietprotocol.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-thequietprotocol-www-tqp-growth-offense 'https://www.thequietprotocol.com/api/mcp'
What is the The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server?
The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as com.thequietprotocol.www/tqp-growth-offense. Read-only MCP server for The Quiet Protocol's engines, benchmarks, proof, and business data. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.thequietprotocol.com/api/mcp).
Is the The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server safe to use?
The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP scores 87 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 Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server expose?
The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP exposes 29 tools: find_best_resource, get_ai_discovery_index, get_answer_bank, get_benchmark, get_buyer_guide, and 24 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,475 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server still maintained?
The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP 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 The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP, 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.