Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

North End Law

REMOTE · NORTHEND.LAW

Data processing agreement, $350 flat fee, reviewed and released by a lawyer.

Available components

+4 this week 71 Trust /100

Last scanned (20 hours ago)

Scores higher than 61% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 22 Oct 2026.

Category Documents and Files

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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 Security63
Transport & Reachability100
Schema Quality & AI Usability65
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1717 tokens (~156/item across 11 items; 11 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 Management44
  • Stability check failed: schema churn in the 15 days we've observed: 0 tool removals, 1 breaking changes, 0 auth/transport breaks, 0 additions. See how to fix → Fail
Tool Coverage95
  • 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
  • 85% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
  • No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
  • We read all 11 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 12 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
Changelog

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.

  • 22 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 41 to 44.

  • 20 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 34 to 38.

  • 18 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 28 to 31.

  • 16 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 21 to 24.

  • 14 Oct 26 0
    • Stability: 0.20 → fail ▼ security
    • A breaking change shipped without a version bump: still 1.0.0 ▼ security
    • Judged manipulation: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Tool “submit_facts” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “get_deliverable” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “open_matter” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Tool “submit_dpa_facts” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
    • Schema quality: 132 → 156 ▼ functional
    • “open_matter” dropped the required parameter “adverseParties” ▼ functional
    • “open_matter” dropped the required parameter “client” ▼ functional
    • “open_matter” dropped the required parameter “counterparties” ▼ functional
    • “open_matter” dropped the required parameter “namedPerson” ▼ functional
    • “open_matter” added an optional parameter “label” cosmetic
  • 12 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 10 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 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.

  • 8 Oct 26 65

    First indexed and scored.

Diagnostics

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 22 Oct 2026 · Probed https://northend.law/api/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=northend.law CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US 18 Sept 2026 17 Dec 2026 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA 5710d1d1fb1bb283820e4236d9f90f14225
SANs: northend.law
CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US 3 Sept 2025 2 Sept 2028 RSA 2048 SHA256-RSA a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e
CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US 13 May 2026 2 Sept 2032 RSA 4096 SHA256-RSA f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f

Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of northend.law. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. trust_anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
law. present 56101 13 Verified
northend.law. 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=63072000

Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →

Transports 2 probes
Transport URL Outcome Status Location
streamable-http https://northend.law/api/mcp Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://northend.law/api/mcp HTTPS enforced 308 https://northend.law/api/mcp
MCP tools · 11 exposed · ~1,622 tokens

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 →

Tool Tokens
get_deliverable ~112

Once a lawyer has released it: the agreement in Markdown with placeholders ([Client], [Customer] or [Vendor], and blank addresses and signatures), so you can explain it to the user. The final agreement with the parties' details, in PDF and Word, is only on the private page and in the e-mail to the person who signs.

NameTypeReqDescription
matterIdstringyesThe matter id returned by open_matter.
matterTokenstringyesThe matter token returned once by open_matter.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_dpa_requirements ~65

The facts the data processing agreement needs, as a JSON Schema. Optionally narrowed to one governing law and the client's role. Do not send the facts until the engagement has begun.

NameTypeReqDescription
governingLawstring––
rolestring–The client's role.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_engagement_terms ~65

The full limited-scope engagement text for a service, with its version and SHA-256 hash, and whether it is open for acceptance.

NameTypeReqDescription
toolstringyesThe service: "dpa" (data processing agreement) or "baa" (business associate agreement).

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_matter_status ~66

Where the matter stands, the next human step, the target in business hours, and any question from the lawyer.

NameTypeReqDescription
matterIdstringyesThe matter id returned by open_matter.
matterTokenstringyesThe matter token returned once by open_matter.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_payment_link ~97

The firm's own card payment page for $350, available once the named person has accepted the engagement. The fee is charged in full at checkout and refunded in full if the firm declines the matter or does not deliver. The link is also e-mailed to the named person.

NameTypeReqDescription
matterIdstringyesThe matter id returned by open_matter.
matterTokenstringyesThe matter token returned once by open_matter.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

get_requirements ~111

The facts a service needs, as a JSON Schema: service "dpa" (data processing agreement) or "baa" (business associate agreement). For a DPA, optionally narrowed to one governing law and the client's role. Do not send the facts until the engagement has begun.

NameTypeReqDescription
governingLawstring––
rolestring–The client's role.
servicestringyesThe service: "dpa" (data processing agreement) or "baa" (business associate agreement).

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

list_services ~75

What North End Law offers through this server, at what fixed price, under which laws, and who is responsible. Responsible lawyer: Sergio Maldonado Elvira, Founder & Principal Attorney, North End Law Corporation, 447 Sutter St. Suite 506 - 1349, San Francisco, California 94108, United States.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

open_matter ~491

Starts a request for a data processing agreement ($350) or, with tool "baa", a business associate agreement ($350). Send only the service, the governing law (CALIFORNIA by default, or SPAIN; CALIFORNIA only for a BAA), the client's role (PROCESSOR by default, or CONTROLLER; BUSINESS_ASSOCIATE for a BAA, with receivesPhi false) and, if useful, a short label that names no one. Do not ask the user for, and do not send, any name, e-mail address or postal address: the firm never needs them from you. Write "the Client" for the user's company and "the Customer" (or "the Vendor", when the client is the controller) for the other party. Returns a matter id, a matter token (shown once: keep it) and a private link. Give the private link to the user and ask them to open it in their browser within 24 hours. There the user enters their company's details, their own and the other party's, and the firm runs its conflicts check. You never see those details. The firm accepts the engagement when its automatic conflicts check is clear and payment is received (for a subscriber, when the engagement is accepted and the check is clear). If a possible conflict is found, nothing is charged, or the payment is refunded in full. A vendor whose services handle protected health information should use request_consultation.

NameTypeReqDescription
governingLawstring–The law of the DPA: CALIFORNIA by default, or SPAIN. The law of the BAA: CALIFORNIA only.
labelstring–Optional. A short label for the user to recognize the request, for example "customer DPA, October". It must name no one.
receivesPhiboolean–BAA only, and required for it: whether the client's services are designed to create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information. Only false is accepted; for services that handle it, u…
rolestring–The client's role under the agreement: PROCESSOR by default, or CONTROLLER. For a BAA: BUSINESS_ASSOCIATE (the default and the only role offered).
toolstringyesThe service: "dpa" (data processing agreement) or "baa" (business associate agreement).

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

request_consultation ~71

For anything outside the listed services: gives the booking link and lets the firm know a person would like to talk. Send a one-line topic only, no confidential facts.

NameTypeReqDescription
emailstringyes–
namestringyes–
topicstringyesOne line, no confidential facts.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

submit_dpa_facts ~211

The fact package for the agreement, in the "dealroom.solo-intake/1" shape described by get_dpa_requirements. Accepted only once the engagement has begun, and again when the lawyer asks for changes. Leave out counterpartyLegalName: the firm adds the other party from the private page. Do not ask the user for, and do not send, any name, e-mail address or postal address: the firm never needs them from you. Write "the Client" for the user's company and "the Customer" (or "the Vendor", when the client is the controller) for the other party. A fact package that contains a name, an e-mail address or a postal address the firm holds for the matter is refused.

NameTypeReqDescription
factsobjectyesThe fact package; see get_dpa_requirements.
matterIdstringyesThe matter id returned by open_matter.
matterTokenstringyesThe matter token returned once by open_matter.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

submit_facts ~258

The fact package for the matter's service, in the "dealroom.solo-intake/1" shape described by get_requirements. Accepted only once the engagement has begun, and again when the lawyer asks for changes. Leave out counterpartyLegalName: the firm adds the other party from the private page. Do not ask the user for, and do not send, any name, e-mail address or postal address: the firm never needs them from you. Write "the Client" for the user's company and "the Customer" (or "the Vendor", when the client is the controller) for the other party. A fact package that contains a name, an e-mail address or a postal address the firm holds for the matter is refused. For a business associate agreement, the facts must not contain protected health information: they describe the services, not any individual.

NameTypeReqDescription
factsobjectyesThe fact package; see get_requirements.
matterIdstringyesThe matter id returned by open_matter.
matterTokenstringyesThe matter token returned once by open_matter.
servicestringyesThe service: "dpa" (data processing agreement) or "baa" (business associate agreement).

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the North End Law MCP server?

North End Law is a hosted endpoint at https://northend.law/api/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 · northend.law

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http law-northend-dpa 'https://northend.law/api/mcp'
Common questions

What is the North End Law MCP server?

North End Law is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as law.northend/dpa. Data processing agreement, $350 flat fee, reviewed and released by a lawyer. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://northend.law/api/mcp).

Is the North End Law MCP server safe to use?

North End Law scores 71 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 North End Law MCP server expose?

North End Law exposes 11 tools: list_services, get_requirements, get_dpa_requirements, get_engagement_terms, request_consultation, and 6 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,622 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the North End Law MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to North End Law without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

Is the North End Law MCP server still maintained?

North End Law is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 22 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.