ReturnCheck
REMOTE · RETURNCHECK.M-ANGELMARTINEZ-FER.WORKERS.DEV · 2 COMPONENTS
Can this product actually be returned? The merchant's exact clause, its URL and the date.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 55% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category E-commerce
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 call this server, and 1 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 405, 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 & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability60
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 549 tokens (~549/item across 1 items; 1 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage89
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 67% 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 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 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
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 Oct 26 0
- Tool “check_return” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: good → excellent functional
- 3 Oct 26 0
- “check_return” added an optional parameter “page_source_url” cosmetic
1 cosmetic change on this day. Switch on “Show cosmetic changes” to see it.
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 22 Sept 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 1 Sept 26 0
- Schema quality: 411 → 518 ▼ functional
- “check_return” added an optional parameter “payment_signature” cosmetic
- 28 Aug 26 0
- Tool “check_return” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 291 → 411 ▼ functional
- “check_return” reworded the description of “page_html” cosmetic
- “check_return” reworded the description of “page_text” cosmetic
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → 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 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.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=m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 20 Oct 2026 | 18 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 123722ec0c24cef60e89a2cff80a75bc |
| SANs: m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev, *.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev | ||||||
| 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 returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.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 | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 405 |
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_return ~518
ReturnCheck verifies which return policy actually applies to this purchase. BEST RESULTS: send the product page you already have as page_text (or page_html) along with product_url — your browser renders JavaScript and is not blocked by retailers, so this works on any store and is faster. Without it we fetch the page ourselves and reach the policy for about 1 in 3 US retailers (17 of 50 measured 2026-08-28; mostly Shopify and direct-to-consumer brands — large retailers and marketplaces block server-side reads). You get a verified verdict — YES / YES_WITH_CONDITIONS / NO / UNKNOWN — with the exact policy clause quoted verbatim, source URL, return window/deadline, fees and a confidence score. Never invents: returns UNKNOWN instead of guessing, and UNKNOWN is free.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer_country | string | yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. 'US'. |
| delivery_date | string | – | YYYY-MM-DD (optional; preferred for the deadline). |
| item_condition | string | – | – |
| merchant | string | – | – |
| page_html | string | – | RECOMMENDED (alternative to page_text). Raw HTML of the same page. Slightly better than page_text: we can also read structured data (JSON-LD) from it. |
| page_source_url | string | – | URL of the supplied page_text/page_html when different from product_url. Caller-declared provenance; not independently fetched. |
| page_text | string | – | RECOMMENDED. Plain text of the product or returns page you already have open. We verify against this instead of fetching: works on any store, no blocking, no JavaScript problem, and faster. Still nev… |
| payment_signature | string | – | OPTIONAL. x402 payment authorization, base64 — the same envelope the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header carries over HTTP. Use it to pay per call with no account and no signup. How: call once without it; if th… |
| product_url | string | yes | The product page URL (http/https). |
| purchase_date | string | – | YYYY-MM-DD (optional). |
| reason | string | – | – |
| seller_name | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ReturnCheck MCP server?
ReturnCheck is a hosted endpoint at https://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.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 · returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http mangelmartinezfer-hue-returncheck 'https://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev/mcp'
What is the ReturnCheck MCP server?
ReturnCheck is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.mangelmartinezfer-hue/returncheck. Can this product actually be returned? The merchant's exact clause, its URL and the date. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://returncheck.m-angelmartinez-fer.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the ReturnCheck MCP server safe to use?
ReturnCheck scores 70 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 ReturnCheck MCP server expose?
ReturnCheck exposes 1 tool: check_return. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 518 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ReturnCheck MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to ReturnCheck without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the ReturnCheck MCP server still maintained?
ReturnCheck 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.