ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant
REMOTE · WWW.TRYCHARGEGUARD.COM
Chargeback intelligence: 9 card-network reason codes, winning evidence, gateway deadlines. Free.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 55% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
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 4 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 Usability73
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 344 tokens (~86/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 Management27
- Stability observed for 8 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
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 5 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 4 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 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.
- 2 Nov 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.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 28 Oct 26 66
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://www.trychargeguard.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=trychargeguard.com | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 7 Sept 2026 | 6 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 67d47b623e0ba27b2e8a4e3e35e48bd3294 |
| SANs: *.trychargeguard.com, trychargeguard.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 www.trychargeguard.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| trychargeguard.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=0; includeSubDomains; preload |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://challenges.cloudflare.com https://js.stripe.com https://eu-assets.i.posthog.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://fonts.googleapis.com; font-src 'self' https://fonts.gstatic.com; img-src 'self' data: blob: https://*.supabase.co; connect-src 'self' https://*.supabase.co https://api.stripe.com https://eu.i.posthog.com https://eu-assets.i.posthog.com; frame-src https://challenges.cloudflare.com https://js.stripe.com https://hooks.stripe.com; frame-ancestors 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.trychargeguard.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.trychargeguard.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.trychargeguard.com/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 →
get_response_deadlines get response deadlines ~49
Response windows merchants have to fight a chargeback, per gateway (Stripe, PayPal, Braintree, Adyen, Shopify Payments) and per card network (Visa, Mastercard, Amex).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_reason_codes list reason codes ~49
List the 9 card-network chargeback reason codes covered by ChargeGuard (Visa, Mastercard, Amex) with one-line summaries. Use first when the user mentions a chargeback without a code.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
lookup_reason_code lookup reason code ~99
Look up one card-network chargeback reason code: what it means, the evidence that wins the representment, the response window, and the full guide URL. Accepts the code (e.g. '13.2') or a slug fragment (e.g. 'visa-13-2').
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | Reason code like '13.2' or '4515', or slug fragment like 'visa-13-2' |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
request_chargeback_audit request chargeback audit ~122
Submit a free ChargeGuard store audit: reviews the merchant's payment setup and dispute risk and emails a written report. Requires the store URL and a contact email.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | string | yes | Company or store name |
| string | yes | Contact email for the audit report | |
| notes | string | – | Optional context: dispute volume, card networks, current provider |
| platform | string | – | Shopify, WooCommerce, Magento, BigCommerce or custom |
| store_url | string | yes | Store URL, e.g. https://mystore.com |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server?
ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant is a hosted endpoint at https://www.trychargeguard.com/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.trychargeguard.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-trychargeguard-chargeguard 'https://www.trychargeguard.com/mcp'
What is the ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server?
ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.trychargeguard/chargeguard. Chargeback intelligence: 9 card-network reason codes, winning evidence, gateway deadlines. Free. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.trychargeguard.com/mcp).
Is the ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server safe to use?
ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant scores 70 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 ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server expose?
ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant exposes 4 tools: list_reason_codes, lookup_reason_code, get_response_deadlines, request_chargeback_audit. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 319 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server still maintained?
ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant 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 ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant, 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 ChargeGuard Dispute Assistant: 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.