SoleScout
REMOTE · SOLESCOUT.AI
Live sneaker & streetwear prices and in-stock sizes across 600+ US stores, by style code.
Available components
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 68% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 6 Nov 2026.
Category E-commerce
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 Security74
- 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 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 Usability74
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 258 tokens (~64/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 Management53
- Stability observed for 16 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 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 6 Nov 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 5 Nov 26 +1
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- MCP protocol: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: unreachable → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.50 ▲ functional
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- Stability: 0.43 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 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.
- 28 Oct 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.
- 26 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.
- 24 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.
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 6 Nov 2026 · Probed https://solescout.ai/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=solescout.ai | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 22 Sept 2026 | 21 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 500b34bf30bf355d0ef61d2c4c422d0f |
| SANs: solescout.ai | ||||||
| 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 solescout.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | DS published | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| solescout.ai. | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://solescout.ai/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://solescout.ai/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://solescout.ai/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 →
cheapest_for_size ~73
For one product, the cheapest retailer holding EACH size. The winning store differs size to size, so a product-level "lowest price" is usually the wrong answer for a specific buyer.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | string | – | optional US size, e.g. "9.5" |
| slug | string | yes | product slug |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_brands ~24
Brands in the catalogue with product counts. Ground a brand name before searching.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_sneakers ~98
Search the catalogue by model name, colorway or manufacturer style code (e.g. "samba og", "HQ9438"). Returns products with their live lowest price and how many tracked retailers carry each.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | string | – | exact brand name from list_brands |
| limit | number | – | max results, default 8, cap 20 |
| query | string | yes | model, colorway, or style code |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
where_to_buy ~63
Every tracked retailer currently carrying a product, with each one's price, in-stock sizes and a direct link to its own product page. This is the long-tail coverage a feed-based catalogue does not have.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | string | yes | product slug from search_sneakers |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the SoleScout MCP server?
SoleScout is a hosted endpoint at https://solescout.ai/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 · solescout.ai
claude mcp add --transport http cyberldy-solescout 'https://solescout.ai/api/mcp'
What is the SoleScout MCP server?
SoleScout is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.cyberLdy/solescout. Live sneaker & streetwear prices and in-stock sizes across 600+ US stores, by style code. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://solescout.ai/api/mcp).
Is the SoleScout MCP server safe to use?
SoleScout scores 77 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 SoleScout MCP server expose?
SoleScout exposes 4 tools: search_sneakers, where_to_buy, cheapest_for_size, list_brands. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 258 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the SoleScout MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to SoleScout without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the SoleScout MCP server still maintained?
SoleScout is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 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 SoleScout MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on SoleScout, 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.