VoteShip
NPM · @VOTESHIP/MCP-SERVER · 2 COMPONENTS
Manage feature requests, votes, roadmaps, and changelogs from any MCP client.
Available components
Last scanned (8 hours ago)
Scores higher than 68% of npm servers
Category Project Management
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 Security81
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects zod 3.25.76, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 95 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
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 76 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability86
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 593 tokens (~98/item across 6 items; 4 tools + 2 resources), lean.Pass
- 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 Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 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
- Supports UI / widget rendering.Pass
Checks we ran (17)
- Malware scan
- Known CVEs
- Install scripts
- Dependency health
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
- Capabilities
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 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.93 functional
- 24 Oct 26 −5
- CVE-2023-54404 affects this package: high ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- 20 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 19 Oct 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 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 7 Nov 2026 · Analysed npm/@voteship/mcp-server@0.2.3
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 | CVE-2023-54404 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 95 packages
| Packages resolved | 95 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 30 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
add_public_comment Comment on a public request ~98
Use this when the user wants to add public context or a follow-up to a known VoteShip feature request. Add a comment to a feature request on a public VoteShip board. No API key needed. Requires an author name.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| author_name | string | yes | Display name for the comment author |
| body | string | yes | Comment text (max 5000 chars) |
| post_id | string | yes | The post ID to comment on |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | – | – | The VoteShip API result for this operation |
No examples provided.
browse_board Browse a feature board ~94
Use this when the user wants to inspect, compare, or interact with approved requests on a public VoteShip board. View approved feature requests on a public VoteShip board. No API key needed. Returns posts sorted by vote count and renders an interactive board in MCP Apps clients.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_slug | string | – | Project slug (e.g. 'my-app'). Optional if VOTESHIP_PROJECT_SLUG env var is set. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardUrl | string | yes | – |
| posts | array | yes | – |
| projectSlug | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
submit_feature_request Submit a feature request ~164
Use this when the user wants to send new product feedback to a public VoteShip board without administering the project. Submit a feature request to any public VoteShip board. No API key needed. The post is created as PENDING and requires board owner approval. Include metadata.source to identify your agent.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | string | – | Detailed description of the feature request |
| string | – | Submitter's email (for follow-up notifications) | |
| project_slug | string | – | Project slug (e.g. 'my-app'). Optional if VOTESHIP_PROJECT_SLUG env var is set. |
| source | string | – | Name of the agent or app submitting this request (stored in metadata.source) |
| title | string | yes | Feature request title (max 200 chars) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | – | – | The VoteShip API result for this operation |
No examples provided.
upvote_post Toggle a feature-request vote ~81
Use this when the user explicitly wants to add or remove their agent identity's vote on a known VoteShip post. Vote or unvote on a feature request (toggles). Uses a deterministic anonymous ID so the same agent on the same machine has a consistent identity. No API key needed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | string | yes | The post ID to vote on |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | – | – | The VoteShip API result for this operation |
No examples provided.
How do I install the VoteShip MCP server?
VoteShip runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @voteship/mcp-server. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @voteship/mcp-server
claude mcp add mattkilmer-voteship -- npx -y @voteship/mcp-server
What is the VoteShip MCP server?
VoteShip is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.MattKilmer/voteship. Manage feature requests, votes, roadmaps, and changelogs from any MCP client. This page covers its npm package (@voteship/mcp-server).
Is the VoteShip MCP server safe to use?
VoteShip scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 7 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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 VoteShip MCP server expose?
VoteShip exposes 4 tools: submit_feature_request, browse_board, upvote_post, add_public_comment. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 437 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the VoteShip MCP server still maintained?
VoteShip is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 7 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the VoteShip MCP server under?
VoteShip 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 VoteShip MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 17 checks on VoteShip, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 13 more. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an npm package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.