LLM Red-Team Scanner
REMOTE · QDMBZZWFTOR2RGMXUPYYASGUHY.SRV.US
LLM agent security review: live injection/jailbreak probes plus a static audit of missing guardrails
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 44% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
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 Security57
- 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 5 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 is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 Usability65
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 366 tokens (~73/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management33
- Stability observed for 10 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 13% 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 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 5 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
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
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 −1
- Tool coverage: 50% → 13% ▼ functional
- Schema quality: 63 → 73 ▼ functional
- New tool “validate” functional
- 30 Oct 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.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 26 Oct 26 60
First indexed and scored.
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://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=srv.us | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 6 Oct 2026 | 4 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 69555d97984e19493cfbf22ef13ff51324a |
| SANs: *.gh.srv.us, *.gl.srv.us, *.srv.us, srv.us | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| us. | present | 59017 | 8 | Verified |
| srv.us. | 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://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp |
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 →
get_pricing ~53
PRO pricing & payment info: 44 probes / 20 attack classes / 0-100 score / CI gate / per-class remediation, 0.15 XNO (ERC-20 or Lightning) or card.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_purchase_flow ~53
Machine-readable autonomous purchase procedure: how an agent pays (0.15 XNO, or USDC on Base via x402) and receives the PRO download with no human in the loop (callback push + poll fallback).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_scan_result ~35
Poll a scan by job id (returned by run_free_scan) until status=done.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
run_free_scan ~113
Free LLM agent security review in ~35s. Two parts: (1) 8 live adversarial probes (jailbreak / prompt injection / system-prompt extraction / tool abuse) against your agent spec, and (2) a deterministic static audit of which guardrails the spec text itself is missing. Returns a 0-100 risk score, per-finding evidence, and a paste-ready guardrail sentence for each gap.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | string | yes | Your agent / system prompt (>=20 chars) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
validate ~112
Judge one delivery against the task's own acceptance rule and return {verdict: accepted|rejected, reason}. Called by the brick.blue hub when this seat is drawn as validator. Judges only machine-checkable criteria (json_schema / contains / fields); a task with no such rule is accepted, because rejecting needs evidence.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| attemptId | string | – | – |
| description | string | – | – |
| input | – | – | – |
| result | – | – | – |
| taskId | string | – | – |
| title | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server?
LLM Red-Team Scanner is a hosted endpoint at https://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/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 · qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us
claude mcp add --transport http manhliemcn4euwlu-source-llm-red-team-scanner 'https://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp'
What is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server?
LLM Red-Team Scanner is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.manhliemcn4euwlu-source/llm-red-team-scanner. LLM agent security review: live injection/jailbreak probes plus a static audit of missing guardrails. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://qdmbzzwftor2rgmxupyyasguhy.srv.us/mcp).
Is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server safe to use?
LLM Red-Team Scanner scores 63 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 LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server expose?
LLM Red-Team Scanner exposes 5 tools: run_free_scan, get_scan_result, get_pricing, get_purchase_flow, validate. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 366 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to LLM Red-Team Scanner without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the LLM Red-Team Scanner MCP server still maintained?
LLM Red-Team Scanner 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.