Aperture MCP
PYPI · APERTURE-MCP · SCANNED SEP 20
Flag when a tracked commitment vanishes verbatim between two versions. A signal, not a judge.
Available components
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
- Runs setuptools.build_meta at install time, a recognised native-build step with no shell scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 0 of 29 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency48
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (Apache-2.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 76 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability67
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1016 tokens (~203/item across 5 items; 5 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 Management83
- Stability observed for 25 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- 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
- We read all 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 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
How do I install the Aperture MCP server?
Aperture MCP runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx aperture-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · aperture-mcp
claude mcp add jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp -- uvx aperture-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"aperture-mcp"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"aperture-mcp"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp -- uvx aperture-mcp
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"uvx",
"aperture-mcp"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp --command uvx --arg aperture-mcp
mcp_servers:
jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp:
command: "uvx"
args: ["aperture-mcp"] {
"McpServers": {
"jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "uvx",
"Arguments": [
"aperture-mcp"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp -t stdio -c uvx -a aperture-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"jaysinailabs-aperture-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"aperture-mcp"
]
}
}
} 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.
- 19 Sept 26 −2
- Stability: pass → 0.80 functional
- 18 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 17 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 14 Sept 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.
- 12 Sept 26 −2
- Stability: pass → 0.80 functional
- 11 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 10 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 7 Sept 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.
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 20 Sept 2026 · Analysed pypi/aperture-mcp@0.2.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | setuptools.build_meta |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 29 packages
| Packages resolved | 29 |
|---|---|
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
compare ~180
Surface drift between two text states of the SAME decision object (state_a = earlier, state_b = later). Pass anchors=[{kind, id}] to track specific constraints/goals/commitments/baselines — an id present in state_a but missing from state_b reads as violated (directional; an id absent from state_a does not trigger), and the id must appear VERBATIM (case-insensitive substring) to match — so RE-STATE tracked anchors verbatim in state_b (a constraint you kept but did not re-state still reads as violated). Returns an 8-value status (only 4 are emitted on this surface) + violations + reason. Heuristic, not a semantic judge; a drift signal, not a sole gate.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchors | – | – | – |
| state_a | string | yes | – |
| state_b | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
compare_commitment ~89
compare specialized for a COMMITMENT: checks ONLY commitment anchors; flags a promise present in state_a but gone from state_b as DROPPED_SILENTLY. Caveat: cannot distinguish a FULFILLED commitment from an abandoned one — that disposition is the caller's to decide.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchors | – | – | – |
| state_a | string | yes | – |
| state_b | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
compare_proposal ~116
compare specialized for a PROPOSAL: also flags strength regression (strong→weak wording) as degraded — but ONLY for a narrow FIXED keyword set (English modals + 必须/务必/应当/确保→应该/也许); most reworded/softened wording falls outside this list and is MISSED. Checks ONLY constraint/goal anchors (other kinds silently ignored) for presence in state_b.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchors | – | – | – |
| state_a | string | yes | – |
| state_b | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
compare_stance ~68
compare specialized for a STANCE: also flags polarity reversal (support↔oppose) as degraded. Checks ONLY goal/baseline anchors (other kinds silently ignored) in state_b.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchors | – | – | – |
| state_a | string | yes | – |
| state_b | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
health ~18
Liveness check; returns status + name + version.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
What is the Aperture MCP server?
Aperture MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.jaysinailabs/aperture-mcp. Flag when a tracked commitment vanishes verbatim between two versions. A signal, not a judge. This page covers its PyPI package (aperture-mcp).
Is the Aperture MCP server safe to use?
Aperture MCP scores 79 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 2026. 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 Aperture MCP server expose?
Aperture MCP exposes 5 tools: health, compare, compare_proposal, compare_stance, compare_commitment. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 471 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Aperture MCP server still maintained?
Aperture MCP is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 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 Aperture MCP server under?
Aperture MCP declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.