Tattoo Brief MCP
MCPB · SERVER.MCPB
Deterministic MCP tools for tattoo briefs, small-size legibility checks, and line-art prompts.
Available components
Last scanned (21 hours ago)
Scores higher than 77% of MCPB servers
Category Design and Media
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 Security23
- 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 were checked across the 92 of 92 dependencies we could resolve, so this covers what we could see, not the whole tree.Partial
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 92 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
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 10 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability54
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 194 tokens (~64/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management37
- Stability observed for 11 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 3 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
Checks we ran (15)
- 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
Checks we could not complete (1)
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 SecurityNo 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.
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 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 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 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 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 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 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 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.
- 27 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.
- 25 Oct 26 41
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 · Analysed mcpb/https://github.com/MazzaWill/tattoo-brief-mcp/releases/download/v0.1.0/server.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 →
Dependencies 92 packages
| Packages resolved | 92 |
|---|---|
| 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 →
build_tattoo_brief ~84
Turn a tattoo idea, style, placement and size into a structured brief to bring to a tattoo artist.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| avoid | array | – | – |
| color | string | – | – |
| idea | string | yes | – |
| must_include | array | – | – |
| placement | string | yes | – |
| size_cm | number | yes | – |
| style | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_small_size_legibility ~48
Heuristic blur-risk check for tattoo details at a given size. Rules of thumb only, not a guarantee.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | array | yes | – |
| size_cm | number | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
line_art_prompt ~62
Write a clean line-art prompt (plus negative prompt) for an AI tattoo generator.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| composition | string | – | – |
| extra | array | – | – |
| line_weight | string | – | – |
| style | string | – | – |
| subject | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Tattoo Brief MCP server?
Tattoo Brief 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. Before opening it, check the file's SHA-256 matches the one the MCP registry declares for it, 531d8867fd2ce7d481ed112224d067266fa2eb19b1c08abc1efa3921290aac12; the commands to do that are on this page. If it does not match, do not open it.
mcpb · server.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
531d8867fd2ce7d481ed112224d067266fa2eb19b1c08abc1efa3921290aac12
macOS / Linux
echo "531d8867fd2ce7d481ed112224d067266fa2eb19b1c08abc1efa3921290aac12 server.mcpb" | shasum -a 256 -c
Windows (PowerShell)
(Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 .\server.mcpb).Hash -eq "531d8867fd2ce7d481ed112224d067266fa2eb19b1c08abc1efa3921290aac12"
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 Tattoo Brief MCP server?
Tattoo Brief MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.MazzaWill/tattoo-brief-mcp. Deterministic MCP tools for tattoo briefs, small-size legibility checks, and line-art prompts. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/MazzaWill/tattoo-brief-mcp/releases/download/v0.1.0/server.mcpb).
Is the Tattoo Brief MCP server safe to use?
Tattoo Brief MCP scores 46 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. 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 Tattoo Brief MCP server expose?
Tattoo Brief MCP exposes 3 tools: build_tattoo_brief, check_small_size_legibility, line_art_prompt. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 194 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the Tattoo Brief MCP server under?
Tattoo Brief 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 Tattoo Brief MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 15 checks on Tattoo Brief MCP, covering Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health, Source repository and 11 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Tattoo Brief MCP: Malware scan. 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.