LLM Red-Team Scanner
REMOTE · LLMRT-COMPANION.MANHLIEMCN4EUWLU.WORKERS.DEV
35-probe LLM/agent security red-team scan (injection, jailbreak, MCP abuse) with report.
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 4% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 17 Oct 2026.
Category Security
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 Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 530, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 530. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. 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.
- 10 Oct 26 −48
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.67 → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 4 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.
- 1 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Sept 26 +46
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 4 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
- MCP protocol: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.53 ▲ functional
- 29 Sept 26 −45
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: 0.47 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 27 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Sept 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
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://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 11 Sept 2026 | 10 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6beea4c78ed55acb12c201cc4f7123dabc8 |
| SANs: *.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev, manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.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 llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 530 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev/mcp | HTTP error | 530 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 530 |
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 →
get_pricing ~44
PRO pricing & payment info: 24 probes / 9 attack classes / 0-100 score / CI gate, 3 USDT (ERC-20 or Lightning).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_purchase_flow ~41
Machine-readable autonomous purchase procedure: how an agent pays 3 USDT and receives the PRO download with no human in the loop (callback push + poll fallback).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_scan_result ~35
Poll a scan by job id (returned by run_free_scan) until status=done.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
run_free_scan ~78
Free LLM red-team scan: 8 adversarial probes (jailbreak/prompt-injection/system-prompt-extraction/tool-abuse) against your agent or system prompt. Returns 0-100 risk score + level + full report in ~35s.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | string | yes | Your agent / system prompt (>=20 chars) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server?
LLM Red-Team Scanner is a hosted endpoint at https://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.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 · llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-workers-manhliemcn4euwlu-llmrt-companion-llm 'https://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev/mcp'
What is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server?
LLM Red-Team Scanner is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.workers.manhliemcn4euwlu.llmrt-companion/llm-red-team-s…. 35-probe LLM/agent security red-team scan (injection, jailbreak, MCP abuse) with report. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://llmrt-companion.manhliemcn4euwlu.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server safe to use?
LLM Red-Team Scanner scores 18 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 LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server expose?
LLM Red-Team Scanner exposes 4 tools: run_free_scan, get_scan_result, get_pricing, get_purchase_flow. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 198 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for LLM Red-Team Scanner. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server still maintained?
LLM Red-Team Scanner 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.