closure_drift
OCI · GHCR.IO/LUIZFNSILVA/CLOSURE_DRIFT
Before an agent tags a release: does that version label already name different code in the git tags?
Available components
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 74% of OCI servers
Category Version Control
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 Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
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 (Apache-2.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 0 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 640 tokens (~160/item across 4 items; 4 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 Management60
- Stability observed for 18 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
- 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 4 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
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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
- Stability: 0.53 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- Package version: 1.3.3 → 1.5.0 functional
- Package version: 1.3.3 → 1.4.0 functional
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Package version: 1.3.1 → 1.3.3 functional
- Package version: 1.3.1 → 1.3.2 functional
- 2 Nov 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.
- 31 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.
- 30 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 1.2.2 → 1.3.1 functional
- Package version: 1.2.2 → 1.3.0 functional
- 29 Oct 26 +1
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.33 → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- Package version: 1.2.1 → 1.2.2 functional
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 1.2.0 → 1.2.1 functional
- 26 Oct 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.
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 oci/ghcr.io/luizfnsilva/closure_drift@1.5.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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_versions Measure all version labels ~184
Use to audit the whole tag history: does each version label name exactly one code state? For a single release about to be tagged, use would_tag. With one release only, the answer is not decided (exit 2). Returns exit 0, 1 or 2 and the JSON report. Exit 2 is not a pass: nothing was decided, and output says why (no label found, a file not read, a tag not compared). Read-only: it runs git reads only, on the local repository, with no network.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| published_file | string | – | a local file with the versions actually released, one per line; tags not on it are not counted as publications |
| repo | string | yes | path to a local git repository with its tags fetched |
| strict | boolean | – | answer clean only if every tag scanned was compared (default false) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| exit | integer | yes | 0 clean, 1 drift, 2 not decided (the reason is in output) |
| meaning | string | yes | the exit code in words |
| output | – | yes | the JSON report (docs/REPORT.md), or the refusal as text |
No examples provided.
compare Compare two references ~171
Use to compare any two tags or commits you name: their version labels, closures and the paths that differ. Publication points play no part. Exit 1 when both declare one label and the code differs. Returns exit 0, 1 or 2 and the JSON report. Exit 2 is not a pass: nothing was decided, and output says why (no label found, a file not read, a tag not compared). Read-only: it runs git reads only, on the local repository, with no network.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | string | yes | the first tag or commit (the reference side) |
| b | string | yes | the second tag or commit; paths are listed as changed, only in a, only in b |
| repo | string | yes | path to a local git repository with its tags fetched |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| exit | integer | yes | 0 clean, 1 drift, 2 not decided (the reason is in output) |
| meaning | string | yes | the exit code in words |
| output | – | yes | the JSON report (docs/REPORT.md), or the refusal as text |
No examples provided.
explain_label Explain a label in drift ~158
Use after check_versions reports drift: lists, for one label, the paths that differ between the first tag that used it and each other tag that did. For two references you choose, use compare. Returns exit 0, 1 or 2 and the JSON report. Exit 2 is not a pass: nothing was decided, and output says why (no label found, a file not read, a tag not compared). Read-only: it runs git reads only, on the local repository, with no network.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | string | yes | a version label reported in drift, as written in the report (e.g. 1.0.0) |
| repo | string | yes | path to a local git repository with its tags fetched |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| exit | integer | yes | 0 clean, 1 drift, 2 not decided (the reason is in output) |
| meaning | string | yes | the exit code in words |
| output | – | yes | the JSON report (docs/REPORT.md), or the refusal as text |
No examples provided.
would_tag Check before tagging ~127
Use BEFORE creating a release tag: would the version that HEAD declares reuse a label that already names other code in the tags? Exit 1 means do not tag; bump the version first. Returns exit 0, 1 or 2 and the JSON report. Exit 2 is not a pass: nothing was decided, and output says why (no label found, a file not read, a tag not compared). Read-only: it runs git reads only, on the local repository, with no network.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | string | yes | path to a local git repository with its tags fetched |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| exit | integer | yes | 0 clean, 1 drift, 2 not decided (the reason is in output) |
| meaning | string | yes | the exit code in words |
| output | – | yes | the JSON report (docs/REPORT.md), or the refusal as text |
No examples provided.
How do I install the closure_drift MCP server?
closure_drift runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/luizfnsilva/closure_drift:1.5.0. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · ghcr.io/luizfnsilva/closure_drift
claude mcp add luizfnsilva-closure-drift -- docker run --rm -i ghcr.io/luizfnsilva/closure_drift:1.5.0
What is the closure_drift MCP server?
closure_drift is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.luizfnsilva/closure_drift. Before an agent tags a release: does that version label already name different code in the git tags? This page covers its container image (ghcr.io/luizfnsilva/closure_drift).
Is the closure_drift MCP server safe to use?
closure_drift scores 49 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 closure_drift MCP server expose?
closure_drift exposes 4 tools: would_tag, check_versions, explain_label, compare. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 640 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the closure_drift MCP server still maintained?
closure_drift 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 closure_drift MCP server under?
closure_drift declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the closure_drift MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on closure_drift, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about closure_drift: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to a container image, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.