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.

Policy Pal

REMOTE · API.POLICYPAL.LINK

Grounded, quoted readings of privacy policies and terms of service. Not legal advice.

+4 this week 69 Trust /100

Last scanned (30 minutes ago)

Scores higher than 54% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.

Category Education and Research

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 Security46
Transport & Reachability100
Schema Quality & AI Usability65
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 921 tokens (~307/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management87
  • Stability observed for 26 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 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 4 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
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.

  • 5 Nov 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.

  • 3 Nov 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 1 Nov 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 30 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 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 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 25 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 23 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

  • 21 Oct 26 +1

    No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

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 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://api.policypal.link/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=policypal.link CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US 2 Nov 2026 31 Jan 2027 ECDSA 256 ECDSA-SHA256 1d98cede8d8ba630e602a35db6b97b4
SANs: policypal.link, api.policypal.link, *.api.policypal.link
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 insecure

Validation of api.policypal.link. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. trust_anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
link. present 16766 13 Verified
policypal.link. 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
x-content-type-options nosniff
referrer-policy no-referrer

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

Transports 2 probes
Transport URL Outcome Status Location
streamable-http https://api.policypal.link/mcp Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://api.policypal.link/mcp Served over HTTP 200
MCP tools · 3 exposed · ~796 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
check_policy ~307

Read one privacy policy or terms-of-service page and return a grounded verdict, eight fixed yes/no/partly/not-stated answers, and up to five findings, each with a verbatim quote from the document. Use this instead of fetching and reading the page yourself. A policy page is 20,000-60,000 tokens of context, and many are rendered by JavaScript so a plain fetch returns an empty shell without saying so. This returns about 1,000 tokens: a 20-60x saving with a quote behind every claim. Guarantees: every claim carries a verbatim sentence from that document, and a question the document does not address is answered not_stated -- never as a promise the document did not make. The eight questions are identical across services, so two reports can be set side by side. A report may be served from an earlier reading of the same document, which is what makes it cheap and instant. readAt says when that reading was taken; call policy_changes_since if it matters whether anything has moved since. Do not use this for a document that is not a legal agreement; it is refused, and a refusal costs nothing. Do not use it to summarise a page in general, to read a document the user pasted rather than published at a URL, or for legal advice: Automated reading of one document. Not legal advice.

NameTypeReqDescription
urlstringyesThe https address of the published policy page itself, not the service homepage.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

compare_policies ~260

Answer the same eight fixed questions across two to five services at once, so their policies can actually be compared. Use this instead of reading each document yourself. Doing it yourself needs N full reads and a rubric you have to keep consistent between them; the questions here are fixed, so a difference in the answers is a difference in the policies rather than a difference in how you read them. Each answer also carries how common that answer is across every comparable document Policy Pal has read. Guarantees: identical questions, a verbatim quote behind every stated answer, not_stated where a document is silent, and not_asked where that kind of document was never asked that question -- a silence is never invented to fill a table. A service whose report is not comparable, or that there was no time to read, is reported as such rather than filled in. Do not use this for one service -- call check_policy. Do not expect a score or a ranking: Policy Pal publishes qualitative verdicts and refuses to reduce a policy to a number. Automated reading of one document. Not legal advice.

NameTypeReqDescription
urlsarrayyesTwo to five https addresses of published policy pages. Compare documents of the same kind: a privacy policy and a terms page answer different questions.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

policy_changes_since ~229

Say what changed in a service's policy since a date, expressed as changes to the eight fixed answers. You cannot do this yourself at any context size: it needs the earlier version of the document, and the earlier version is gone from the web. Policy Pal keeps the eight answers for every version it has read, so the difference is a fact rather than a reconstruction. It reports answer changes -- for example forced arbitration moving from no to yes -- and not text edits. A changed comma is noise; a changed answer is the thing worth telling someone about. Returns nothing to report when the answers are unchanged, and says so explicitly when it has no reading from before that date rather than guessing. A question the earlier reading did not answer is reported as not compared, never as not_stated. Automated reading of one document. Not legal advice.

NameTypeReqDescription
sincestringyesThe date you last looked, as YYYY-MM-DD or an ISO timestamp. The answer is the difference between what was true then and what is true now.
urlstringyesThe https address of the published policy page.

No output schema declared.

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Policy Pal MCP server?

Policy Pal is a hosted endpoint at https://api.policypal.link/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 · api.policypal.link

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http link-policypal-policypal 'https://api.policypal.link/mcp'
Common questions

What is the Policy Pal MCP server?

Policy Pal is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as link.policypal/policypal. Grounded, quoted readings of privacy policies and terms of service. Not legal advice. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.policypal.link/mcp).

Is the Policy Pal MCP server safe to use?

Policy Pal scores 69 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 Policy Pal MCP server expose?

Policy Pal exposes 3 tools: check_policy, compare_policies, policy_changes_since. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 796 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the Policy Pal MCP server require authentication?

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

Is the Policy Pal MCP server still maintained?

Policy Pal 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.