io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council
OCI · GHCR.IO/CYBERWAREX/CYBERWAREX-COUNCIL
Second opinion for agents: 3-4 AI models answer, one verdict with confidence and dissent.
Available components
Last scanned (10 hours ago)
Scores higher than 74% of OCI servers
Category AI and Machine Learning
Deprecated
This server is marked deprecated in the MCP registry.
The registry records this reason: Retired 2026-11-04: the Agent Council service is shut down. See https://cyberwarex.com for live CyberWareX tools.
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency32
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- License check failed: no license is declared. See how to fix → Fail
- Actively maintained (last published 36 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability78
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 472 tokens (~157/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management77
- Stability observed for 23 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 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 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
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
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 −3
- Stability: pass → 0.73 functional
- 29 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 28 Oct 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.
- 25 Oct 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.
- 23 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.
- 21 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.
- 19 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.
- 17 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.
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 · Analysed oci/ghcr.io/cyberwarex/cyberwarex-council@1.1.2
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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 →
council ~161
Get a second opinion from 3 DIFFERENT AI models before acting on a judgement call. Each model answers your question independently, then a chair returns one verdict with a confidence score, the points every model agreed on, the dissent, and what would change the answer. Use it when the next step depends on an opinion rather than a fact: is this safe, is it worth it, which option. Gate an irreversible action on `confidence` and `dissent` rather than on one model's certainty. Costs $0.01 in USDC per call over x402, no account.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | string | yes | The question to put to the council. A decision question works best: include the options and the constraints you are weighing, in one or two sentences. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
council_deep ~127
The same panel with 4 models and two rounds: every seat sees the other seats' positions and revises, so you get a verdict that survived cross-examination plus each seat's changed_after_debate flag and strongest objection. Use it when being wrong is expensive, or when a `council` call came back with low confidence or real dissent. $0.03 in USDC per call.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | string | yes | The question to put to the council. A decision question works best: include the options and the constraints you are weighing, in one or two sentences. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
council_grounded ~184
Deliberation on bought FACTS rather than on model recollection. Your question is scanned for a contract address, a URL or a $TICKER; the matching evidence is purchased (honeypot and owner-powers simulation, OFAC sanctions screen, the actual page content, SEC company profile, open web results), handed to 4 different models, and argued over two rounds. The response lists every source consulted and exactly what was spent on your behalf. Use it before accepting an unknown token, counterparty, link or ticker. Priced per question, $0.05 to $0.12 in USDC: call it unpaid first to get the itemised quote for free.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | string | yes | The question to put to the council. A decision question works best: include the options and the constraints you are weighing, in one or two sentences. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council MCP server?
io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i -e CWX_X_PAYMENT -e CWX_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY -e CWX_COUNCIL_URL ghcr.io/cyberwarex/cyberwarex-council:1.1.2. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/cyberwarex/cyberwarex-council
claude mcp add cyberwarex-cyberwarex-council -- docker run --rm -i -e CWX_X_PAYMENT -e CWX_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY -e CWX_COUNCIL_URL ghcr.io/cyberwarex/cyberwarex-council:1.1.2
This image reads CWX_X_PAYMENT, CWX_SUBSCRIPTION_KEY and CWX_COUNCIL_URL. Set them in your client's env block for this server; docker run -e passes each one through to the container.
What is the io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council MCP server?
io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council. Second opinion for agents: 3-4 AI models answer, one verdict with confidence and dissent. This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/cyberwarex/cyberwarex-council).
Is the io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council MCP server safe to use?
io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council scores 49 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 io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council MCP server expose?
io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council exposes 3 tools: council, council_deep, council_grounded. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 472 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council MCP server still maintained?
io.github.cyberwareX/cyberwarex-council is marked deprecated 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.