Verdict L402
REMOTE · VERDICT.KECHLAB.COM · 2 COMPONENTS
Ask if an action is safe before your agent runs it: injection, shell, MCP installs. Free samples.
Available components
Last scanned (14 hours ago)
Scores higher than 51% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 26 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 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 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. 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 Usability76
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 488 tokens (~122/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management20
- Stability observed for 6 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 20 Oct 26 63
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 26 Oct 2026 · Probed https://verdict.kechlab.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=kechlab.com | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 11 Oct 2026 | 9 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 636e612aeb9848c3513cd919cc305ca0a12 |
| SANs: *.kechlab.com, kechlab.com | ||||||
| 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 verdict.kechlab.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | present | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| kechlab.com. | 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://verdict.kechlab.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://verdict.kechlab.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://verdict.kechlab.com/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 →
verdict_command_gate Shell command gate ~102
Free sample. Before a coding agent runs a shell command, ask whether to allow, review or block it: root deletion, download and run, privilege escalation, secret exfiltration. Pass the human intent when you know it. Not a sandbox: it reads the command, it does not run it.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | string | yes | The shell command the agent wants to run. |
| intent | string | – | Optional. What the human asked the agent to do. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verdict_firewall Action firewall ~111
Free sample. Before an agent acts on untrusted content (pay, send, delete, click, reply), give the human goal, the content it read and the action it proposes. Returns allow, review or block: it catches actions that follow orders hidden in the content.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | string | yes | The action the agent wants to run (tool call, command, payment). |
| content | string | yes | The untrusted content the agent read. |
| goal | string | yes | The objective the human gave. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verdict_guard Prompt-injection guard ~101
Free sample. Before your agent reads untrusted text (web page, email, document, tool output), check it for prompt injection, data exfiltration requests, secrets and toxic content. Returns allow, review or block with scores and reasons. Use it on text you did not write. Do not use it to judge an action: use verdict_firewall.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | string | yes | The untrusted text to examine (4000 characters maximum in free samples). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verdict_mcp_vet MCP tool vetting ~120
Free sample. Before installing an MCP server, skill or tool: is its description poisoned (hidden orders to the agent, excessive permissions, look-alike names)? Returns allow, review or block with reasons.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | string | yes | The description text it exposes to the agent. |
| name | string | yes | Name of the tool or server. |
| permissions | array | – | Optional permissions requested, for example filesystem:write, network, shell. |
| tools | array | – | Optional list of { name, description } of the functions it exposes. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Verdict L402 MCP server?
Verdict L402 is a hosted endpoint at https://verdict.kechlab.com/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 · verdict.kechlab.com
claude mcp add --transport http jeannicolasdavid1979-verdictl402 'https://verdict.kechlab.com/mcp'
What is the Verdict L402 MCP server?
Verdict L402 is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.jeannicolasdavid1979/verdictl402. Ask if an action is safe before your agent runs it: injection, shell, MCP installs. Free samples. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://verdict.kechlab.com/mcp).
Is the Verdict L402 MCP server safe to use?
Verdict L402 scores 66 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 Verdict L402 MCP server expose?
Verdict L402 exposes 4 tools: verdict_guard, verdict_command_gate, verdict_mcp_vet, verdict_firewall. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 434 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Verdict L402 MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Verdict L402 without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Verdict L402 MCP server still maintained?
Verdict L402 is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 26 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.