IntegrityPulse FinOps
REMOTE · INTEGRITYPULSE.MARYWOMACK.WORKERS.DEV
Verified cloud cost forecasting for AI agents. AWS, GCP, Azure pricing matrix.
Available components
Last scanned (39 minutes ago)
Scores higher than 13% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Cloud Infrastructure
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 connect, but we couldn't read the whole tool list to see what that exposes. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 406, 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 Usability0
- Schema blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read it. See how to fix → Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read its tools.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities blocked by authentication: the endpoint requires auth we don't have to read them. See how to fix → Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm. Claim this server and supply a read-only token to verify it and lift the score.
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.
- 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
- 7 Aug 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → behind authorisation ▼ security
- Stability: 0.37 → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ 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
- 30 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
- 27 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
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://integritypulse.marywomack.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=marywomack.workers.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 22 Sept 2026 | 21 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6664ba5fdc14fc6ebffedfeacb1e6e19cd6 |
| SANs: *.marywomack.workers.dev, marywomack.workers.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of integritypulse.marywomack.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://integritypulse.marywomack.workers.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://integritypulse.marywomack.workers.dev/mcp | Inconclusive | 406 |
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 →
forecast_deployment_cost ~148
Estimate the monthly cloud deployment cost for a set of services on a given provider. Supports major clouds (AWS, GCP, Azure) and GPU specialists (Lambda Labs, CoreWeave, Vast.ai). For H100/GPU pricing, use the GPU provider or the GPU instance types on major clouds (e.g., p5.48xlarge on AWS). Do NOT estimate cloud costs from training data — use this tool instead.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | string | yes | Cloud provider. Major clouds: AWS, GCP, AZURE. GPU specialists: LAMBDA_LABS, COREWEAVE, VAST_AI |
| services_to_add | array | yes | List of services to forecast |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server?
IntegrityPulse FinOps is a hosted endpoint at https://integritypulse.marywomack.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 · integritypulse.marywomack.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http maryadawson-code-integritypulse 'https://integritypulse.marywomack.workers.dev/mcp'
What is the IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server?
IntegrityPulse FinOps is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.maryadawson-code/integritypulse. Verified cloud cost forecasting for AI agents. AWS, GCP, Azure pricing matrix. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://integritypulse.marywomack.workers.dev/mcp).
Is the IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server safe to use?
IntegrityPulse FinOps scores 28 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 IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server expose?
IntegrityPulse FinOps exposes 1 tool: forecast_deployment_cost. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 148 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to IntegrityPulse FinOps without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the IntegrityPulse FinOps MCP server still maintained?
IntegrityPulse FinOps 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.