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.

Typeship

NPM · @TYPESHIP-AX/MCP · 4 COMPONENTS

Generate a typed SDK, CLI, and MCP server from any OpenAPI or GraphQL spec, and keep them current.

−3 this week 89 Trust /100

Last scanned (23 hours ago)

Scores higher than 93% of npm servers

Category Developer Tools

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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 Security100
  • No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
  • No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
  • No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
  • No production dependencies, so there is no dependency health to assess. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency97
  • Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
  • Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to typeship-ax/mcp). View diagnostics → Pass
  • Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
  • Actively maintained (last published 35 days ago).Pass
  • Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability67
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 588 tokens (~196/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 Management80
  • Stability observed for 24 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage96
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 89% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety75
  • No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
  • 0 of 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation; "execute" implies "execute" and declares no destructiveHint at all, which the MCP spec reads as destructive by default. See how to fix → Fail
  • An AI judge read all 4 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
What we tested

Checks we ran (16)

  • Malware scan
  • Known CVEs
  • Install scripts
  • Dependency health
  • Source repository
  • Provenance
  • License
  • Maintenance
  • Security disclosure
  • Schema quality
  • Stability
  • Tool coverage
  • Injection markers
  • Destructive annotations
  • Judged manipulation
  • MCP protocol

Does not apply to this package (2)

  • Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
  • Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.

The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →

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 −3
    • Stability: pass → 0.80 functional
  • 31 Oct 26 0
    • Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
  • 29 Oct 26 0
    • Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
  • 19 Oct 26 +1
    • Stability: 0.97 → pass security
  • 17 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 15 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.

  • 13 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.

  • 12 Oct 26 −4
    • Stability: pass → 0.77 functional
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 · Analysed npm/@typeship-ax/mcp@0.23.0

Provenance Verified

A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.

Result Verified
Ecosystem npm
Reason Verified
Discovered via Registry attestation endpoint
Source repo typeship-ax/mcp
Certificate issuer https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com
Certificate SAN https://github.com/typeship-ax/mcp/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/tags/v0.23.0
Rekor log index 3021917830
Predicate type SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1
Subject digest sha512:db9738a07e5e8a82a6e5e4b1a720200645868429fcbb32e353854ee15c8b26b2ddd5bcfa9b66f94246750597308dd6f5deb4f3a347fdb78dfe994b791

Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →

Dependencies 0 packages
Packages resolved 0
Tree resolution Complete

Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →

MCP tools · 3 exposed · ~331 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
execute ~94

Execute an API operation by name. Discover it with search_docs, then read_docs <operation> for its arguments, example, and safety classification. Destructive operations require confirm: true.

NameTypeReqDescription
argumentsobject–Operation arguments keyed by parameter name
confirmboolean–Required and must be true for destructive operations. Omit for reads and ordinary writes.
operationstringyesOperation tool name returned by search_docs

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

read_docs ~156

Read an operation's reference (arguments, authentication, safety, an example and the result's shape) by tool name, a named input type, or a docs-site guide page. path narrows to one nested argument, e.g. "filter.team.key"; schema: true adds the complete JSON Schemas.

NameTypeReqDescription
offsetinteger–Character offset to continue a long page from, default 0
pagestringyes–
pathstring–A dotted argument path within the operation or type, e.g. "filter.team.key": that field's type, with its named type's fields or values
schemaboolean–Also return the operation's complete input and output JSON Schemas, default false

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

search_docs ~81

Search this API's 42 generated operations and, when a docs site is configured, its guides. Start here to find the operation you need.

NameTypeReqDescription
pageinteger–Page of reference matches (10 per page), default 1
querystringyesThe task in a few words, e.g. "assign issue" or "list calls"

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Typeship MCP server?

Typeship runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @typeship-ax/mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.

npm · @typeship-ax/mcp

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add dev-typeship-typeship -- npx -y @typeship-ax/mcp
Common questions

What is the Typeship MCP server?

Typeship is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.typeship/typeship. Generate a typed SDK, CLI, and MCP server from any OpenAPI or GraphQL spec, and keep them current. This page covers its npm package (@typeship-ax/mcp).

Is the Typeship MCP server safe to use?

Typeship scores 89 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. Its build provenance is signed and verified. 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 Typeship MCP server expose?

Typeship exposes 3 tools: search_docs, read_docs, execute. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 331 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Is the Typeship MCP server still maintained?

Typeship 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 licence is the Typeship MCP server under?

Typeship declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.

What did VerifyMCP test on the Typeship MCP server?

VerifyMCP ran 16 checks on Typeship, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 12 more. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an npm package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.