GingerLive
REMOTE · MCP.GINGERLIVE.IO
GingerLive livestream ad formats, network reach stats, campaign case studies, and streamer program.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 89% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
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 Security77
- 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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- 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 is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability64
- 40% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Partial
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 835 tokens (~92/item across 9 items; 6 tools + 3 resources), lean.Pass
- 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 7 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.
- 10 Oct 26 0
- Tool “get_company_overview” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 2 Oct 26 0
- Schema quality: 55 → 92 ▼ functional
- Server version: 0.2.2 → 0.3.0 functional
- “get_case_study” added an optional parameter “intent” cosmetic
- “get_company_overview” added an optional parameter “intent” cosmetic
- “get_network_stats” added an optional parameter “intent” cosmetic
- “get_streamer_program_info” added an optional parameter “intent” cosmetic
- “list_ad_formats” added an optional parameter “intent” cosmetic
- “list_case_studies” added an optional parameter “intent” 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
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Tool “get_case_study” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_company_overview” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_network_stats” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_streamer_program_info” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “list_ad_formats” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “list_case_studies” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 29 → 55 ▼ functional
- Schema quality: good → excellent functional
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- Server version: 0.2.0 → 0.2.2 functional
- 18 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Aug 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
- 20 Aug 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 19 Aug 26 0
First indexed and scored.
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://mcp.gingerlive.io/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=gingerlive.io | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 16 Oct 2026 | 14 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | e1cfb9a37559daa10edf0d54a59902b6 |
| SANs: gingerlive.io, mcp.gingerlive.io, *.mcp.gingerlive.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 secure
Validation of mcp.gingerlive.io. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| gingerlive.io. | DS published | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| mcp.gingerlive.io. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
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 |
|---|---|
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| 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://mcp.gingerlive.io/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.gingerlive.io/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.gingerlive.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 →
get_case_study Get a case study ~149
Returns one GingerLive campaign case study: title, date, URL and the full markdown write-up (brand, approach and results). Requires a slug from list_case_studies; an unknown slug returns the list of valid slugs. Read-only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
| slug | string | yes | Case-study slug, e.g. 'turknet-x-gingerlive-case-study-gen-z-livestream-advertising-campaign' |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_company_overview Company overview ~165
Returns GingerLive's company profile: what the livestream advertising platform does, supported streaming platforms (Twitch, Kick, YouTube Live, TikTok LIVE), reference clients, headline network stats, third-party measurement partners and contact links. Use first for general "what is GingerLive" questions; use get_network_stats for just the reach numbers, list_ad_formats for formats, get_streamer_program_info for the creator side. Read-only; data is a static snapshot of gingerlive.io's public facts.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_network_stats Network stats ~126
Returns GingerLive's network reach and performance figures: streamer count, annual unique reach, monthly hours of livestreams watched and ad view-through rate. Use when a user asks about scale or performance benchmarks; use list_case_studies for campaign-specific results. Read-only; figures are GingerLive's published network numbers.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_streamer_program_info Streamer program ~131
Returns how livestreamers join and earn with GingerLive: cost (free for streamers), how the in-stream ad program works, supported platforms and the sign-up link. Use for creator or streamer monetization questions; for brand-side questions use get_company_overview or list_ad_formats instead. Read-only; public program information.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_ad_formats Ad formats ~135
Lists the livestream ad formats GingerLive sells to brands (e.g. picture-in-picture, banners, rich media, pinned chat drops, streamer announcements), each with a short description, plus format badges such as unskippable and adblock-safe. Use when planning or comparing ad formats; use get_company_overview for the company itself. Read-only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_case_studies List case studies ~114
Lists GingerLive campaign case studies with slug, title, short excerpt and URL. Use to find proof points or results for a brand, category or format, then call get_case_study with a slug for the full write-up. Read-only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | string | – | Optional: one short sentence on what the user is trying to accomplish, e.g. 'compare ad formats for a gaming product launch in Turkey'. Used only to improve this server's coverage. Do not include nam… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the GingerLive MCP server?
GingerLive is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.gingerlive.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.gingerlive.io
claude mcp add --transport http io-gingerlive-mcp 'https://mcp.gingerlive.io/mcp'
What is the GingerLive MCP server?
GingerLive is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.gingerlive/mcp. GingerLive livestream ad formats, network reach stats, campaign case studies, and streamer program. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.gingerlive.io/mcp).
Is the GingerLive MCP server safe to use?
GingerLive 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 GingerLive MCP server expose?
GingerLive exposes 6 tools: get_company_overview, get_network_stats, list_ad_formats, list_case_studies, get_case_study, get_streamer_program_info. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 820 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the GingerLive MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to GingerLive without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the GingerLive MCP server still maintained?
GingerLive 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 GingerLive MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on GingerLive, 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.