Exactlane Preflight
REMOTE · EXACTLANE.DEV
Caller-specific static MCP capability fit evidence. No live probing; caller owns the decision.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 91% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 17 Oct 2026.
Category Developer Tools
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
- 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. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- 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 Usability58
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 663 tokens (~663/item across 1 items; 1 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
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
- 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
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 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
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.
- 11 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 10 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 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.
- 7 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 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.
- 5 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.
- 3 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.
- 1 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.
- 29 Sept 26 +7
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- 28 Sept 26 −6
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
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 17 Oct 2026 · Probed https://exactlane.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=exactlane.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 11 Sept 2026 | 10 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 61d0cb00865a4da35ce5ac7b29134ad5535 |
| SANs: *.exactlane.dev, exactlane.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| 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 exactlane.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| exactlane.dev. | 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=2592000 |
| content-security-policy | default-src 'none'; style-src 'unsafe-inline'; img-src 'self' |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://exactlane.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://exactlane.dev/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://exactlane.dev/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 →
check_mcp_capability Check MCP capability ~459
Before relying on an MCP capability, answer one question about it: does this exact revision satisfy the requirements your workflow declares? Call it for new work, after a dependency changes, after your own requirements change, or when an integration has already failed and you need to know whether the capability is why (the public triggers are NEW_WORK, DEPENDENCY_CHANGE, REQUIREMENTS_CHANGE, INTEGRATION_FAILURE, OTHER_REAL_WORK). You supply both sides: a capability snapshot you already hold and your workflow requirements. Nothing is fetched and no endpoint is probed, so the answer is reproducible from what you sent and is only ever as good as that snapshot. You get back a verdict with per-check results, coverage, and the limits of the check itself. That is evidence, not an instruction: the caller owns CONTINUE, UPDATE_INTEGRATION, and HOLD, and no verdict maps to any of them. Optional previous (an earlier snapshot and its finished report) adds a revision_receipt comparing that conclusion with this revision. Budget before calling: a Preview grant allows three checks, while POST /v0/snapshot-lint validates argument and requirements shape with no credential and no quota, so start there when unsure. This tool never writes usage-events (usage_event_created is always false) and never discloses the internal Preview bearer; attest your own decision afterwards on a finished owned check.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_key | string | yes | Opaque caller capability key; same contract as POST /v0/capabilities |
| previous | object | – | Optional. Makes this a revision-aware check (POST /v0/revision-checks semantics). Send the snapshot and finished report from an earlier check of the same capability_key with identical requirements. E… |
| profile_version | string | – | Optional mcp-consumer-fit version; inferred from requirements when omitted |
| requirements | object | yes | Caller workflow requirements using a supported mcp-consumer-fit schema |
| revision_label | string | – | Optional revision label; defaults to mcp-adapter |
| snapshot | object | yes | Caller-provided MCP capability snapshot. No live endpoint is accepted. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller_owns_operational_decision | boolean | yes | – |
| decision_note | string | – | – |
| report | object | yes | Finished Exactlane check report, substantially unchanged |
| revision_receipt | object | – | Present only when previous was supplied: exactlane.revision-receipt/0.1. The global previous-to-current comparison is authoritative; isolated change evaluations report DIRECT_EFFECT_OBSERVED, NO_ISOL… |
| usage_event_created | boolean | yes | Always false. check_mcp_capability does not POST /v0/usage-events and does not disclose the internal Preview bearer. To attest a client-owned CONTINUE, UPDATE_INTEGRATION, or HOLD decision, use REST… |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Exactlane Preflight MCP server?
Exactlane Preflight is a hosted endpoint at https://exactlane.dev/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 · exactlane.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-exactlane-preflight 'https://exactlane.dev/mcp'
What is the Exactlane Preflight MCP server?
Exactlane Preflight is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.exactlane/preflight. Caller-specific static MCP capability fit evidence. No live probing; caller owns the decision. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://exactlane.dev/mcp).
Is the Exactlane Preflight MCP server safe to use?
Exactlane Preflight scores 84 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 Exactlane Preflight MCP server expose?
Exactlane Preflight exposes 1 tool: check_mcp_capability. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 459 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Exactlane Preflight MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Exactlane Preflight without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Exactlane Preflight MCP server still maintained?
Exactlane Preflight is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 17 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.