Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check
REMOTE · X402-STABLE-DOOR.LU7897859.WORKERS.DEV · SCANNED SEP 20
Verify a Chinese supplier before you pay: company identity, status, risk signals. x402 per call.
Available components
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
- 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 connect, but we couldn't read the tool list to see what that exposes. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 530, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 530. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
How do I install the Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server?
Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check is a hosted endpoint at https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/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 · x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit 'https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit": {
"url": "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit] url = "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit --url 'https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit:
url: "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit -t streamable-http -u 'https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"lu7897859-tech-china-sourcing-audit": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 20 Sept 26 −42
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: 0.33 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 19 Sept 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.
- 18 Sept 26 +41
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 8 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
- Schema quality: 130 → 147 ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.30 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- New tool “cpsc_recall_history” functional
- New tool “export_portrait_card” functional
- 15 Sept 26 −40
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.17 → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 13 Sept 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.
- 12 Sept 26 +39
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: 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. security
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.10 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 11 Sept 26 −38
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.03 → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 10 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to connect, but we couldn't read the tool list to see what that exposes. security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
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 · Probed https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=lu7897859.workers.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 28 Aug 2026 | 26 Nov 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 53f5078f30cfea5107eab7c074a97e3091d |
| SANs: *.lu7897859.workers.dev, lu7897859.workers.dev | ||||||
| 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 x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | 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 | 530 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp | HTTP error | 530 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 530 |
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 →
audit_checklist Audit Checklist ~81
Get the complete 7-point China sourcing audit checklist for first-time importers. Covers: business-license verification, live factory video call, export records, sample sealing, safe payment, landed-cost buffer, certificate authenticity. Use before sending any deposit to a new supplier. Based on 20 years of China manufacturing experience.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_case | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
certification_check Certification Check ~70
Check which certifications (CE/FCC/FDA) a product type requires for EU/US import and how to verify certificate authenticity (issuer website lookup of cert numbers). Use when unsure if a supplier's certificate is genuine — fake CE certificates are common and cause customs seizures.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_type | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
cpsc_recall_history Cpsc Recall History ~137
Check a Chinese factory's US product-recall history in the official CPSC SaferProducts recall database. Use when a buyer wants evidence that a supplier really ships to the US (a recall record proves the company sold under its own name into the US market) AND that it has a public safety record worth checking. Source: US Consumer Product Safety Commission public recall REST service (free, no key). One-line verdict + citable evidence chain. Disclaimer: not a legal opinion or credit report; 'not found' means not found in public CPSC data, not 'never recalled'.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_name | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
export_portrait_card Export Portrait Card ~261
Draw a company's SELF-PORTRAIT CARD - a warm, appreciative one-page profile that shows a company what the OTHER side of the border sees, praises its real strengths, and points out only the few gaps that come from limited cross-market awareness. Two directions: direction="out" (default): a Chinese company going global - shows what OVERSEAS buyers see. direction="in": a foreign company entering China - shows what CHINESE partners see. Designed to be GIFTED as a value-first approach: the card is about THEM, not our ad; free to receive, so refusing requires an excuse. Use when an agent introduces a company across the China/global divide. Tone contract (MUST follow): heavy praise grounded in facts; gaps framed ONLY as 'limited cross-market awareness' - never capability, quality, or integrity. Never emit fraud/risk/red-flag words.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| direction | string | – | – |
| founded_year | string | – | – |
| has_english_site | boolean | – | – |
| is_listed | boolean | – | – |
| listing_code | string | – | – |
| recent_disclosures | integer | – | – |
| registered_capital | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
full_supplier_audit Full Supplier Audit ~152
FULL-CHAIN supplier audit: one call runs the complete 5-stage pre-purchase decision (verify supplier -> landed cost -> payment red flags -> audit checklist -> certifications) and returns a unified risk verdict. The AI-commerce one-stop gate for buying from China. Cheaper than calling 5 tools separately; designed for agents that need a complete decision, not a single lookup.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| deposit_pct | number | – | – |
| goods_value_usd | number | – | – |
| height_cm | number | – | – |
| length_cm | number | – | – |
| shipping_mode | string | – | – |
| weight_kg | number | – | – |
| width_cm | number | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
landed_cost_calc Landed Cost Calc ~163
Calculate true landed cost for China-to-US/EU imports: volumetric weight (air /6000, freight), destination port charges (CFS/doc fees), customs duty risk incl HS-code misclassification (12% error rate, 18-month retroactive). Use before budgeting any import order to avoid 40-80% hidden overpayments on light bulky goods. Input: weight (kg), dimensions (cm), goods value (USD), shipping mode (air/sea). Estimates only, not a customs quote.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| goods_value_usd | number | yes | – |
| height_cm | number | yes | – |
| length_cm | number | yes | – |
| shipping_mode | string | – | – |
| weight_kg | number | yes | – |
| width_cm | number | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
payment_red_flags Payment Red Flags ~133
Screen a Chinese supplier payment arrangement for wire-fraud red flags BEFORE sending a deposit. Flags: personal-account payee (legit factories use corporate accounts), payee not matching contract party, urgent account changes (classic email-hijack fraud), deposit >30% above industry norm. Returns go/no-go signals plus safe-payment rules. Use whenever a buyer is about to wire money to China.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_ok | boolean | – | – |
| deposit_pct | number | – | – |
| pay_to_personal | boolean | – | – |
| payee_matches_contract | boolean | – | – |
| urgent_account_change | boolean | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
verify_supplier Verify Supplier ~150
Verify whether a Chinese company is a REAL factory or a trading company/middleman. Use when a buyer provides a Chinese company name, USCI, or a 1688/Alibaba vendor and needs hard fraud flags. Checks public registry signals: shell-company traits, missing manufacturing scope in business license, low registered capital vs real factories (100万+), no factory evidence. NOT for US/EU company verification (those jurisdictions use Middesk/VAT-style registries). Provide company name and any known details (business scope, registered capital). Returns red flags to check and verification steps.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_scope | string | – | – |
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| registered_capital | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
What is the Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server?
Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.lu7897859-tech/china-sourcing-audit. Verify a Chinese supplier before you pay: company identity, status, risk signals. x402 per call. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://x402-stable-door.lu7897859.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server safe to use?
Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check scores 18 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 Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server expose?
Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check exposes 8 tools: verify_supplier, landed_cost_calc, payment_red_flags, audit_checklist, full_supplier_audit, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,147 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check MCP server still maintained?
Verify China Supplier | Supplier Check 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.