Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks
REMOTE · WWW.ALUZZA.JP
Same-job hourly wages in Japan, US, UK, Germany, France; ranks of 31 business risks, Japan vs US.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 45% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Data and Analytics
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 Security51
- 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 6 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 enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 Usability65
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 817 tokens (~136/item across 6 items; 6 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 Management37
- Stability observed for 11 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 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
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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 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.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 25 Oct 26 60
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://www.aluzza.jp/mcp/
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=www.aluzza.jp | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 16 Oct 2026 | 14 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6adbd5fbd78974d56860bf0cbc5d4e260d8 |
| SANs: www.aluzza.jp | ||||||
| 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 www.aluzza.jp. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| jp. | present | 33631 | 8 | Verified |
| aluzza.jp. | 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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.aluzza.jp/mcp/ | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.aluzza.jp/mcp/ | Inconclusive | 405 |
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 →
about_data ~25
このデータの範囲と、二つの読みもののページ。
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
compare_wages ~193
同じ仕事の時給を、日本・米国・英国・ドイツで比べる（56 の仕事）。円に直さず、その国の仕事全体の平均の時給の何倍か（ratio）で返す。query は日本語の仕事の名前か、英語の職業名（例：薬剤師・保育士・software・nurse）。field で分野だけに絞れる。どちらも省くと仕事の一覧。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | string | – | 分野（医療／介護・保育・教育／技術・専門／事務・販売／サービス／運転・運輸／建設・ものづくり）。一部だけでもよい |
| query | string | – | 仕事の名前（日本語）か職業名（英語）の一部 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
france_groups ~49
フランス（Insee の職業の大くくり 9 区分）と、日本でそれに当たる職業をまとめた時給の倍率の比べ。
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
risk_categories ~149
日本 3,766 社と米国 3,808 社の上場企業が「事業のリスク」の見出しに書いた心配ごとの 31 の種類。日米の順位・割合・順位の差。query で種類の名前を絞れる。sort_by は JP（日本の順位）・US（米国の順位）・gap（順位の差が大きい順）。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | – | 種類の名前の一部（例：人手・災害・株主・AI・金利） |
| sort_by | string | – | 並べ方（省くと JP） |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
risk_overview ~83
日米の事業のリスクのまとめ：社数・1 社あたりの見出しの数・米国で AI・生成 AI・関税・Google と書いた会社の数と割合・米国の業種ごとの AI と Google の割合・小売の会社の 8 つの軸（日米）。
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
wages_ranking ~106
一つの国の中で、仕事全体の平均に対する倍率（ratio）の高い順か低い順に並べる。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | yes | 国（JP 日本・US 米国・UK 英国・DE ドイツ） |
| limit | integer | – | 何件まで（省くと 10） |
| order | string | – | 高い順（high・省くとこちら）か低い順（low） |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server?
Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks is a hosted endpoint at https://www.aluzza.jp/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 · www.aluzza.jp
claude mcp add --transport http jp-aluzza-wages-risk 'https://www.aluzza.jp/mcp/'
What is the Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server?
Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as jp.aluzza/wages-risk. Same-job hourly wages in Japan, US, UK, Germany, France; ranks of 31 business risks, Japan vs US. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.aluzza.jp/mcp/).
Is the Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server safe to use?
Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks scores 65 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 Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server expose?
Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks exposes 6 tools: compare_wages, wages_ranking, france_groups, risk_categories, risk_overview, about_data. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 605 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks MCP server still maintained?
Yamagishi Sync Lab: wages and business risks 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.