sota-anchor
PYPI · SOTA-ANCHOR
Finds what shipped after your coding agent's training, before it rebuilds it from scratch.
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 87% of PyPI servers
Category Code Search and Documentation
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 2 of 34 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency48
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 28 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability80
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 399 tokens (~199/item across 2 items; 1 tools + 1 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (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.
- 3 Nov 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 30 Oct 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.
- 29 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 28 Oct 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.
- 26 Oct 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.
- 23 Oct 26 −14
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
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 · Analysed pypi/sota-anchor@0.2.1
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 34 packages
| Packages resolved | 34 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 1 |
| No linked repository | 1 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
check_what_exists Check what already exists ~274
Check whether a plan relies on something being unavailable that may no longer be: no library or reader for a file format, only a vendor SDK able to open it, no API for the data, or a model that cannot do the task. Call it before writing a custom parser, converter or reader, rewriting something from scratch, or adding a workaround, heuristic pipeline or post-processing stage, in any domain - and before telling a user that no tool or library exists for something. Call it with just the pitch first: it returns an inversion prompt asking what would have to be unavailable for the plan to be justified. Answer that, then call again with domain_query (the task in its own vocabulary) and capability_query (whatever would make the workaround unnecessary: an existing implementation, library, tool or model capability), each led by its most specific term, such as a format, product or library name. It returns dated evidence from papers, repositories and package registries, plus the standard for judging it: either the limitation still holds, or an assertion-reason update naming what replaces the workaround. Two queries because a narrow one misses a general advance indexed elsewhere. Raise months if a pass returns nothing.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_query | – | – | – |
| domain_query | – | – | – |
| months | integer | – | – |
| pitch | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the sota-anchor MCP server?
sota-anchor runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx sota-anchor. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · sota-anchor
claude mcp add luckmanqasim-sota-anchor -- uvx sota-anchor
What is the sota-anchor MCP server?
sota-anchor is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.luckmanqasim/sota-anchor. Finds what shipped after your coding agent's training, before it rebuilds it from scratch. This page covers its PyPI package (sota-anchor).
Is the sota-anchor MCP server safe to use?
sota-anchor scores 84 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. 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 sota-anchor MCP server expose?
sota-anchor exposes 1 tool: check_what_exists. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 274 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the sota-anchor MCP server still maintained?
sota-anchor 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.
What licence is the sota-anchor MCP server under?
sota-anchor declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.