Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

LLM Provider MCP

MCPB · LLM-PROVIDER-MCP_LINUX_ARM64.MCPB · 4 COMPONENTS

Delegate asynchronous coding jobs between Claude Code, Codex, Cursor Agent, and Pi.

Available components

mcpb · llm-provider-mcp_darwin_amd64.mcpb 10 mcpb · llm-provider-mcp_darwin_arm64.mcpb 10 mcpb · llm-provider-mcp_linux_amd64.mcpb 55 mcpb · llm-provider-mcp_linux_arm64.mcpb 10
0 this week 10 Trust /100

Last scanned (5 hours ago)

Scores higher than 45% of MCPB servers

Category Developer Tools

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
  • Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
  • Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).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 (MIT).Pass
  • Actively maintained (last published 112 days ago).Pass
  • Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
  • Schema quality not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to assess.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
  • Stability not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to compare.Unverified
Tool Coverage0
  • Tool coverage not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool definitions to assess.Unverified
Tool Safety0
  • Tool safety not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool text to scan.Unverified
Capabilities0
  • Protocol version not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we never saw its MCP handshake.Unverified

Unverified: 6 categories

Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: 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.

What we tested

Checks we ran (5)

  • Source repository
  • Provenance
  • License
  • Maintenance
  • Security disclosure

Checks we could not complete (9)

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: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
  • 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: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
  • Schema quality in Schema Quality & AI Usability (scores 0 for this)Schema quality not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to assess.
  • Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to compare.
  • Tool coverage in Tool Coverage (scores 0 for this)Tool coverage not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool definitions to assess.
  • Tool safety in Tool Safety (scores 0 for this)Tool safety not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool text to scan.
  • Capabilities in Capabilities (scores 0 for this)Protocol version not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we never saw its MCP handshake.

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 →

Changelog

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.

  • 27 Oct 26 0
    • Provenance: unverified → fail ▼ security
  • 26 Oct 26 0
    • Provenance: fail → unverified ▼ security
  • 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
  • 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
  • 11 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
  • 8 Aug 26 0
    • Security disclosure: fail → pass ▲ functional
  • 31 Jul 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
Diagnostics

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 mcpb/https://github.com/manishiitg/llm-provider-mcp/releases/download/v0.7.3/llm-provider-mcp_linux_arm64.mcpb

Provenance No attestation

The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.

Result No attestation
Ecosystem mcpb
Reason No attestation published

Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →

MCP tools

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 →

Tools for package channels are captured by running the package in an isolated sandbox. Our sandbox could not run this package, so no tool list has been captured. That is a gap on our side, not a finding about the package.

Install

How do I install the LLM Provider MCP server?

LLM Provider MCP ships as an MCPB bundle, a single file you download and open in an MCP host that supports MCPB bundles, such as Claude Desktop. The host reads the launch command from the bundle's own manifest, so there is no command to copy. The MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check the download against.

mcpb · llm-provider-mcp_linux_arm64.mcpb

Download bundle

The MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check it against. Open it with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.

Common questions

What is the LLM Provider MCP server?

LLM Provider MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.manishiitg/llm-provider-mcp. Delegate asynchronous coding jobs between Claude Code, Codex, Cursor Agent, and Pi. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/manishiitg/llm-provider-mcp/releases/download/v0.7.3/llm-provider-mcp_linux_arm64.mcpb).

Is the LLM Provider MCP server safe to use?

LLM Provider MCP scores 10 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 licence is the LLM Provider MCP server under?

LLM Provider MCP declares the MIT 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 LLM Provider MCP server?

VerifyMCP ran 5 checks on LLM Provider MCP, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 1 more. 9 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about LLM Provider MCP: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 5 more. 6 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an MCPB bundle, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.