Damper
REMOTE · API.USEDAMPER.COM
Feedback, roadmap, agent task execution with review, changelog, status pages and error logs.
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 66% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Project Management
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 Usability59
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 19061 tokens (~135/item across 141 items; 141 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management20
- Stability observed for 6 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage84
- 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
- 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
- All 18 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 141 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 (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 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 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.
- 31 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 30 Oct 26 73
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://api.usedamper.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=usedamper.com | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 29 Sept 2026 | 28 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | e2bedf53ad500f8c139c6d581d047f01 |
| SANs: usedamper.com, *.usedamper.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 insecure
Validation of api.usedamper.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| usedamper.com. | No DS | 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 |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'none'; frame-ancestors 'none' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
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://api.usedamper.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.usedamper.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://api.usedamper.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 →
upsert_context_relation Upsert Context Relationship ~149
Create or update an explicit typed relationship. Existing routes, bundles, modules, and section metadata remain authoritative; use relationships for missing cross-surface or semantic links.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| authority | string | – | – |
| confidence | number | – | – |
| description | string | – | – |
| enabled | boolean | – | – |
| fromKey | string | yes | – |
| fromKind | string | yes | – |
| metadata | object | – | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| projectId | string | yes | Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs. |
| relation | string | yes | – |
| source | string | – | – |
| toKey | string | yes | – |
| toKind | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dashboardUrl | string | – | Full dashboard URL of the affected resource |
No examples provided.
upsert_context_route Upsert Context Route ~104
Create or update a validated structured context route.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| appliesTo | array | – | – |
| changeKinds | array | – | – |
| description | string | – | – |
| enabled | boolean | – | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| patterns | array | yes | – |
| priority | integer | – | – |
| projectId | string | yes | Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs. |
| riskDomains | array | – | – |
| sections | array | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dashboardUrl | string | – | Full dashboard URL of the affected resource |
No examples provided.
upsert_database_row Upsert Database Row ~171
Create or update one database row by a parent-scoped canonical key. Retries with unchanged input are no-ops. Values are keyed by property ID. Date values are YYYY-MM-DD strings (for example, 2026-09-13); null clears a value.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| canonicalKey | string | yes | – |
| content | string | – | – |
| contentWidth | string | – | – |
| databasePageId | string | yes | – |
| icon | string|null | – | – |
| kind | string | – | – |
| personIds | array | – | – |
| projectId | string | yes | Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs. |
| propertyValues | object | – | Values keyed by property ID. Dates: YYYY-MM-DD strings; null clears a value. |
| title | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| changed | boolean | yes | – |
| created | boolean | yes | – |
| dashboardUrl | string | – | Full dashboard URL of the affected resource |
| page | object | yes | – |
No examples provided.
validate_context_routing Validate Context Routing ~39
Run project route fixtures against the production context resolver.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | string | yes | Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
verify_context_section Verify Context Section ~75
Record repository verification without mutating section content.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | string | – | – |
| projectId | string | yes | Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs. |
| repositoryRevision | string | – | – |
| section | string | yes | – |
| taskId | string | – | – |
| verifiedPaths | array | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dashboardUrl | string | – | Full dashboard URL of the affected resource |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Damper MCP server?
Damper is a hosted endpoint at https://api.usedamper.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 · api.usedamper.com
claude mcp add --transport http com-usedamper-mcp 'https://api.usedamper.com/mcp'
What is the Damper MCP server?
Damper is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.usedamper/mcp. Feedback, roadmap, agent task execution with review, changelog, status pages and error logs. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.usedamper.com/mcp).
Is the Damper MCP server safe to use?
Damper scores 76 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 Damper MCP server expose?
Damper exposes 141 tools: list_projects, get_agent_instructions, list_tasks, get_task, list_self_assessments, and 136 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 19,061 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Damper MCP server require authentication?
Yes. Damper 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 Damper MCP server still maintained?
Damper 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 Damper MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Damper, 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.