FavCRM
REMOTE · API.FAVCRM.IO
Agentic CRM for service businesses — bookings, customers, WhatsApp, loyalty, invoicing.
Available components
Last scanned (20 hours ago)
Scores higher than 99% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
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 Security89
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, but the challenge carries no valid RFC 9728 metadata, so a client cannot discover where to get a token. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability87
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 20974 tokens (~86/item across 242 items; 237 tools + 5 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- Stability check failed: schema churn in the 30 days we've observed: 1 tool removals, 0 breaking changes, 0 auth/transport breaks, 8 additions. See how to fix → Fail
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 99% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- 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
- All 20 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 238 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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.
- 29 Oct 26 0
- “update_booking_settings” added an optional parameter “bookingReminderLeadHoursList” cosmetic
- “update_booking_settings” added an optional parameter “premisePassCode” cosmetic
2 cosmetic changes on this day. Switch on “Show cosmetic changes” to see them.
- 17 Oct 26 0
- Stability: pass → fail ▼ security
- A breaking change shipped without a version bump: still 1.0.0 ▼ security
- Tool “create_broadcast” was removed ▼ security
- “create_campaign” reworded the description of “channelConfig” cosmetic
- 10 Oct 26 0
- Tool “backfill_conversation_summaries” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “backfill_conversation_summaries” reworded the description of “limit” cosmetic
- 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
- 25 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
- 12 Sept 26 0
- Stability: fail → pass ▲ security
- 5 Sept 26 0
- “create_broadcast” reworded the description of “recipientFilter” cosmetic
1 cosmetic change on this day. Switch on “Show cosmetic changes” to see it.
- 4 Sept 26 0
- Tool “create_campaign” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “list_campaigns” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “update_campaign” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- New tool “get_campaign” functional
- New tool “get_event_campaign_exclusions” functional
- New tool “list_event_registrations” functional
- New tool “undo_campaign_send” functional
- “create_campaign” added an optional parameter “audienceExclusions” cosmetic
- “update_campaign” added an optional parameter “audienceExclusions” cosmetic
- “request_send_approval” reworded the description of “payload” cosmetic
- “update_campaign” reworded the description of “recipientIds” cosmetic
- “update_campaign” reworded the description of “recipientSource” cosmetic
- “update_campaign” reworded the description of “status” cosmetic
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 · Probed https://api.favcrm.io/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=favcrm.io | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 9 Oct 2026 | 7 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | b6f4e82481e9d0d10e62053ee69ff893 |
| SANs: favcrm.io, api.favcrm.io, *.api.favcrm.io | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of api.favcrm.io. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| favcrm.io. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Challenged, unverified
The endpoint asked for a token, but we could not retrieve and validate the RFC 9728 metadata that tells a client how to obtain one.
| Result | Challenged, unverified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Protected resource metadata
| Retrieved | No |
|---|---|
| Problem | No resource metadata |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://api.favcrm.io/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.favcrm.io/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://api.favcrm.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 →
void_invoice ~55
Void an invoice. Destructive — invoice can no longer be paid or edited; existing payments are preserved as history. Cannot void invoices that are already PAID or VOIDED.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoiceId | string | yes | Invoice ID to void |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | – | yes | Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description |
| renderType | string | yes | UI rendering hint for the result |
| summary | string | yes | One-line human-readable summary of the action |
No examples provided.
How do I install the FavCRM MCP server?
FavCRM is a hosted endpoint at https://api.favcrm.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 · api.favcrm.io
claude mcp add --transport http io-favcrm-favcrm 'https://api.favcrm.io/mcp'
What is the FavCRM MCP server?
FavCRM is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.favcrm/favcrm. Agentic CRM for service businesses, bookings, customers, WhatsApp, loyalty, invoicing. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.favcrm.io/mcp).
Is the FavCRM MCP server safe to use?
FavCRM scores 93 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 FavCRM MCP server expose?
FavCRM exposes 237 tools: search_members, get_member_profile, preview_customer_import, commit_customer_import, create_account, and 232 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 20,864 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the FavCRM MCP server require authentication?
Yes. FavCRM asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the FavCRM MCP server still maintained?
FavCRM 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 did VerifyMCP test on the FavCRM MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on FavCRM, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.