COS Monitor
REMOTE · MCP.SEMALYTICS.IO · SCANNED SEP 28
Scores website pages for communication quality, tracks regressions, surfaces a fix queue.
Available components
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 Security57
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 13 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 Usability69
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2301 tokens (~177/item across 13 items; 13 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 Management60
- Stability observed for 18 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage98
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 92% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
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_template" 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 14 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
How do I install the COS Monitor MCP server?
COS Monitor is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.semalytics.io/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 · mcp.semalytics.io
claude mcp add --transport http internexio-cos-monitor 'https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"internexio-cos-monitor": {
"url": "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"internexio-cos-monitor": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.internexio-cos-monitor] url = "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"internexio-cos-monitor": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add internexio-cos-monitor --url 'https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
internexio-cos-monitor:
url: "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"internexio-cos-monitor": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add internexio-cos-monitor -t streamable-http -u 'https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"internexio-cos-monitor": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 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 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.
- 26 Sept 26 0
- Server version: 4.0.9 → 4.0.10 functional
- 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
- 24 Sept 26 0
- Server version: 4.0.5 → 4.0.8 functional
- 23 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.
- 21 Sept 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.
- 20 Sept 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
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 28 Sept 2026 · Probed https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=mcp.semalytics.io | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 1 Sept 2026 | 30 Nov 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6a12408639ba08807eaa5cb4cb57c397e69 |
| SANs: mcp.semalytics.io | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.semalytics.io. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | present | 57355 | 8 | Verified |
| semalytics.io. | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.semalytics.io/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 →
analyze_content Analyze Content ~104
Analyze content using all 4 COS frameworks in parallel. Returns comprehensive analysis with: - Overall scores (0-10) for each framework - Dimension breakdowns with weights - Specific recommendations for improvement - Cross-framework insights
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| platform | string | – | Target platform for optimization (affects scoring weights) |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience (improves relevance scoring) |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_framework Analyze Framework ~214
Analyze content using a single specific framework. Faster than full analysis when you only need one perspective. Frameworks: - hape: Engagement Analysis (novelty, relevance, emotional valence) - big_five: Personality Analysis using OCEAN model (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism) - strategic_clarity: Business message clarity (value prop, differentiation, CTA) - framing_strategy: Cognitive frames and power positioning
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| framework | string | yes | Which analysis framework to use |
| platform | string | – | Target platform for optimization |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience |
| temperature | – | – | Optional LLM sampling temperature. Pass 0.0 for deterministic scoring (validation harnesses, classification-agreement gates). Leave unset (None) for the backend default. Forwarded to the analyze endp… |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_full_comms Analyze Full Comms ~138
Run all 7 COS frameworks in parallel for comprehensive analysis. This is the most thorough analysis option, running: - Core 4: HAPE, Big Five, Strategic Clarity, Sovereign Mind - Extended 3: Persuasion (domain-specific), Platform, Quality Use this when you need complete analysis across all dimensions. Takes longer but provides the most comprehensive view.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| domain | string | – | Domain for persuasion analysis |
| platform | string | – | Target platform for optimization |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_persuasion Analyze Persuasion ~205
Analyze content using domain-specific persuasion frameworks. Each domain has specialized scoring dimensions: - business: B2B/B2C messaging, ROI framing, objection handling - politics: Political messaging, polarization awareness, coalition building - health: Medical accuracy, safety messaging, behavior change (CRITICAL domain) - masculinity: Identity messaging, status signaling, tribe alignment - comedy: Humor mechanics, timing, callback patterns
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| domain | string | – | The domain context for persuasion analysis |
| platform | string | – | Target platform for optimization |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience |
| temperature | – | – | Optional LLM sampling temperature. Pass 0.0 for deterministic scoring (validation harnesses, classification-agreement gates). Leave unset (None) for the backend default. Forwarded to the persuasion e… |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_platform Analyze Platform ~119
Analyze content for platform-specific optimization. Evaluates content against platform constraints and algorithm preferences: - Character limits and formatting rules - Algorithm optimization signals - Engagement pattern recommendations - Platform-specific best practices Supported platforms: twitter, linkedin, email, youtube, tiktok, instagram, facebook, medium, substack, podcast, newsletter, slack, discord
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| platform | string | – | The target platform for optimization |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_quality Analyze Quality ~111
Analyze content quality across 5 dimensions. Quality dimensions evaluated: - Clarity: Is the message easy to understand? - Coherence: Does the content flow logically? - Correctness: Grammar, spelling, factual accuracy - Completeness: Are all necessary elements present? - Conciseness: Is the content appropriately tight?
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | string | yes | The text content to analyze (min 50 characters) |
| platform | string | – | Target platform context |
| target_audience | – | – | Description of intended audience |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
audience_profile Audience Profile ~285
Infer OCEAN personality profile from an audience description. Maps a free-text target audience description into a structured psychological profile suitable for personalized outreach (cold email, ads, sales messaging). Returns: - OCEAN scores (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism) - ocean_confidence (0.0-1.0) — low when signals are weak - elm_route ("central" | "peripheral" | "mixed") — how the audience processes persuasion - dominant_traits + trait_rationale - dominant_moral_foundations (Moral Foundations Theory) - vulnerability_flags — audiences requiring careful ethics review - recommended_persuasion_principle (Cialdini) + persuasion_rationale Common use: feed a CRM Person/Account description (title, industry, recent signals) to get a psychology-grounded targeting profile for that prospect.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience_description | string | yes | Free-text description of the target audience (10-2000 chars). Include role, industry, behaviors, pain points, recent signals. |
| campaign_objective | string | – | Campaign goal (e.g. "awareness", "conversion", "retention", "cold_outreach"). |
| domain | string | – | Campaign domain context (e.g. "B2B", "ecommerce", "health", "financial"). |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
chat Chat ~70
Have a conversation with the COS analysis agent. The agent can help you: - Analyze content interactively - Get recommendations for improvement - Understand framework scores - Configure analysis settings
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | – | – | Optional ID to continue an existing conversation |
| message | string | yes | Your message to the COS agent |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
execute_template Execute Template ~84
Execute a specific template with provided variables. Templates guide the analysis with pre-defined prompts and variable placeholders. First use get_templates to find available templates and their required variables.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | string | – | Target platform for optimization |
| template_id | string | yes | The template ID to execute (from get_templates) |
| variables | object | yes | Dictionary of variable values required by the template |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
get_template_details Get Template Details ~62
Get detailed information about a specific template. Returns the template's: - Name and description - Required and optional variables with types - Categories and tags - Scoring dimensions and weights
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | string | yes | The template ID to get details for |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
get_templates Get Templates ~78
List available analysis templates. Templates are pre-configured analysis scenarios for common use cases: - Email outreach optimization - LinkedIn post analysis - Sales pitch review - Content marketing assessment
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | – | – | Filter by template category (e.g., "email", "social", "sales") |
| search | – | – | Search templates by name or description |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
optimize_email_for_prospect Optimize Email For Prospect ~475
Generate or refine a personalized cold email for a CRM prospect. Composite tool: combines audience profiling (OCEAN + Cialdini), optional agent profiling from writing samples, draft generation (if no draft is supplied), and persuasion + platform scoring in a single call. Designed for CRM integrations like Clarify, HubSpot, Salesforce — pass a Person/Account context, get back a draft + scoring. Returns: - audience_profile: OCEAN scores, ELM route, Cialdini principle - agent_profile: prospect's writing style (if samples provided) - draft: generated or echoed email body - draft_was_generated: bool — whether COS generated the draft - persuasion + platform: full scoring breakdowns - rewrites: prioritized rewrite suggestions - one_thing: the single most important next step - cialdini_principle: recommended influence principle
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience_description | string | yes | REQUIRED. Free-text describing the prospect (role, industry, behaviors, pain points, recent signals). 10-2000 chars. This seeds the audience profile. |
| company | – | – | – |
| domain | string | – | Persuasion domain (default "business"). |
| draft | – | – | Existing draft to score + refine. If None, a draft is generated. |
| include_scoring | – | – | Run persuasion + platform scoring on the draft. Default (None): scoring runs ONLY when a draft was supplied (refine path). On the generate path scoring is skipped by default (cuts latency from ~45s t… |
| industry | – | – | – |
| intent | string | – | Email intent ("cold_outreach", "follow_up", "reactivation", "warm_intro", "demo_request", "discovery_call", "proposal_recap"). |
| name | – | – | – |
| recent_signals | – | – | List of recent activity/triggers from the CRM (e.g. ["downloaded ROI calculator", "viewed pricing 3x"]). |
| sender_context | – | – | Who the sender is and what they're pitching. |
| title | – | – | – |
| writing_samples | – | – | 0-5 prospect writing samples (emails, posts). Each ≥50 chars. Profiled if provided. |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
profile_agent Profile Agent ~129
Profile an agent's personality from their writing samples. Analyzes 1-10 writing samples (3-5 recommended) to infer the author's Big Five (OCEAN) personality traits, communication style, strengths, blind spots, and persuasion profile. This is the inverse of content analysis — instead of "is this content effective?", it answers "who is this writer based on how they communicate?"
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | string | – | Name of the agent being profiled |
| samples | array | yes | List of writing samples from the agent (min 50 chars each, 3-5 recommended) |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
What is the COS Monitor MCP server?
COS Monitor is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.internexio/cos-monitor. Scores website pages for communication quality, tracks regressions, surfaces a fix queue. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.semalytics.io/mcp).
Is the COS Monitor MCP server safe to use?
COS Monitor scores 70 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 COS Monitor MCP server expose?
COS Monitor exposes 13 tools: analyze_content, analyze_framework, get_templates, execute_template, chat, and 8 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,074 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the COS Monitor MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to COS Monitor without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the COS Monitor MCP server still maintained?
COS Monitor is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 28 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.