DAGP documentation
MCPB · DAGP-DOCS-MCP-0.1.0.MCPB
Read-only DAGP governance rules, agent quickstart and experimental society guides.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 76% of MCPB servers
Category Crypto and Web3
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 & Transparency45
- 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 29 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability72
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 289 tokens (~19/item across 15 items; 3 tools + 12 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management73
- Stability observed for 22 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage67
- 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 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
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: 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).
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
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 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 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 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 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 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.
- 27 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.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
- Maintenance: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 23 Oct 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.
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/Martines90/dagp/releases/download/v0.1.0-seed.1/dagp-docs-mcp-0.1.0.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 →
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 →
list_documents ~19
List bundled DAGP protocol, status and starter guides.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
read_document ~31
Read a bundled DAGP document by ID. Call list_documents to discover IDs.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_documents ~30
Search bundled documentation for a literal phrase; returns up to ten bounded snippets.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the DAGP documentation MCP server?
DAGP documentation 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. Before opening it, check the file's SHA-256 matches the one the MCP registry declares for it, eeb3d872f3f3ab775a2899cb050148fe374986266c406461926e390b0c5e8b19; the commands to do that are on this page. If it does not match, do not open it.
mcpb · dagp-docs-mcp-0.1.0.mcpb
Download bundleCheck the download matches the SHA-256 the MCP registry declares before you open it. If it does not match, do not open the file.
SHA-256
eeb3d872f3f3ab775a2899cb050148fe374986266c406461926e390b0c5e8b19
macOS / Linux
echo "eeb3d872f3f3ab775a2899cb050148fe374986266c406461926e390b0c5e8b19 dagp-docs-mcp-0.1.0.mcpb" | shasum -a 256 -c
Windows (PowerShell)
(Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 .\dagp-docs-mcp-0.1.0.mcpb).Hash -eq "eeb3d872f3f3ab775a2899cb050148fe374986266c406461926e390b0c5e8b19"
Run it in the folder you saved the bundle to, then open the file with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the DAGP documentation MCP server?
DAGP documentation is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Martines90/dagp-docs. Read-only DAGP governance rules, agent quickstart and experimental society guides. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/Martines90/dagp/releases/download/v0.1.0-seed.1/dagp-docs-mcp-0.1.0.mcpb).
Is the DAGP documentation MCP server safe to use?
DAGP documentation scores 46 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 DAGP documentation MCP server expose?
DAGP documentation exposes 3 tools: read_document, list_documents, search_documents. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 80 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the DAGP documentation MCP server under?
DAGP documentation 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 DAGP documentation MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on DAGP documentation, 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 DAGP documentation: 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 an MCPB bundle, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.