Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

Employment Lawyers Group

REMOTE · ADMIN.WORKLAWYERCA.NET

California employee-side employment law firm: offices, page search, consultation requests.

+3 this week 89 Trust /100

Last scanned (1 hour ago)

Scores higher than 97% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.

Category CRM and Sales

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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
Transport & Reachability100
Schema Quality & AI Usability86
  • 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
  • Tool/resource definitions use about 576 tokens (~96/item across 6 items; 5 tools + 1 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 Coverage98
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 93% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
  • Structured output schemas are declared (80% 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 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 7 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
  • Supports UI / widget rendering.Pass
Changelog

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 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 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 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 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 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 29 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 27 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 25 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 23 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 21 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

Diagnostics

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://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=*.worklawyerca.net CN=Amazon RSA 2048 M04,O=Amazon,C=US 14 Jul 2026 27 Jan 2027 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA a1feef9f813bb7a1d70eee0fc54b557
SANs: *.worklawyerca.net
CN=Amazon RSA 2048 M04,O=Amazon,C=US (CA) CN=Amazon Root CA 1,O=Amazon,C=US 23 Aug 2022 23 Aug 2030 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA 773124f2a952e3ed18a58bdb85d1bc0ce5f27
CN=Amazon Root CA 1,O=Amazon,C=US (CA) CN=Starfield Services Root Certificate Authority - G2,O=Starfield Technologies\, Inc.,L=Scottsdale,ST=Arizona,C=US 25 May 2015 31 Dec 2037 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA 67f944a2a27cdf3fac2ae2b01f908eeb9c4c6

Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of admin.worklawyerca.net. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. trust_anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
net. present 37331 13 Verified
worklawyerca.net. 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=31536000; includeSubDomains
content-security-policy default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' 'unsafe-eval' https://cdn.jsdelivr.net https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com https://cdn.tailwindcss.com https://client.rum.us-west-1.amazonaws.com; style-src 'self' 'unsafe-inline' https://cdn.jsdelivr.net https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com https://fonts.googleapis.com; font-src 'self' data: https://fonts.gstatic.com https://cdn.jsdelivr.net https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com; img-src 'self' data: blob: https:; media-src 'self' blob: https:; connect-src 'self' https:; frame-src 'self'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'self'; form-action 'self' https://*.amazoncognito.com
x-content-type-options nosniff
x-frame-options SAMEORIGIN
referrer-policy strict-origin-when-cross-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://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php HTTPS enforced 301 https://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php
MCP tools · 5 exposed · ~504 tokens

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 →

Tool Tokens
get_firm_info ~65

What the Employment Lawyers Group handles, who it represents, fees, and the address, phone and contact page for one office.

NameTypeReqDescription
sitestring–Site/office host, e.g. sacramentolaborattorney.com. Omit for the Los Angeles office.
NameTypeReqDescription
contact_pagestring––
disclaimerstring––
feesstring––
firmstring––
how_to_reachstring––
officeobject––
phonestring––
practice_areasarray––
service_areastring––
websitestring––

No examples provided.

list_offices ~36

Every office of the firm with its city, county, address, phone and website. Use it to pick the office nearest the person.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
officesarray––

No examples provided.

request_consultation ~225

File a confidential consultation request with the firm on behalf of a person who has agreed to it. Goes through the same intake as the website contact form; the firm calls or emails back. Not for marketing or solicitation.

NameTypeReqDescription
company_sizestring–Approximate number of employees at the employer
consentbooleanyesMust be true: the person has agreed to send these details to the law firm.
emailstring–Email address
locationstring–City and state where they work or worked
namestringyesFull name of the person seeking help
phonestring–Callback phone number with area code. A phone or an email is required.
sitestring–Which office/site to send it to, e.g. riversideemploymentlawyer.com. Use list_offices to choose the nearest. Defaults to the Los Angeles office.
situationstringyesWhat happened at work, in the person's own words
termination_datestring–Date of termination if any, YYYY-MM-DD

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

request_service ~77

Opens the firm's consultation request form for one office. Used by hosts that show a Get Quote button; pass the office business_id from the business feed (its site host). The form itself files the request with the person's consent.

NameTypeReqDescription
business_idstringyesOffice identifier from the business feed, e.g. riversideemploymentlawyer.com
NameTypeReqDescription
officeobject––
sitestring––

No examples provided.

search_pages ~101

Keyword search over the firm's published pages (employment-law topics, attorney profiles, case results). Returns title, summary, URL and a Markdown URL for each match.

NameTypeReqDescription
limitinteger––
querystringyesTopic, e.g. "unpaid overtime" or "fired after medical leave"
sitestring–Site/office host, e.g. sacramentolaborattorney.com. Omit for the Los Angeles office.
NameTypeReqDescription
querystring––
resultsarray––

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Employment Lawyers Group MCP server?

Employment Lawyers Group is a hosted endpoint at https://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php, 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 · admin.worklawyerca.net

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http com-worklawyerca-employment-lawyers-group 'https://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php'
Common questions

What is the Employment Lawyers Group MCP server?

Employment Lawyers Group is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as com.worklawyerca/employment-lawyers-group. California employee-side employment law firm: offices, page search, consultation requests. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://admin.worklawyerca.net/public/agent/mcp.php).

Is the Employment Lawyers Group MCP server safe to use?

Employment Lawyers Group scores 89 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 Employment Lawyers Group MCP server expose?

Employment Lawyers Group exposes 5 tools: get_firm_info, list_offices, search_pages, request_service, request_consultation. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 504 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the Employment Lawyers Group MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to Employment Lawyers Group without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

Is the Employment Lawyers Group MCP server still maintained?

Employment Lawyers Group 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.