aboard
NPM · ABOARD-MCP-SERVER · 2 COMPONENTS · SCANNED SEP 20
Falsifiable claims about systemic problems: causal graph, forecasts, dossiers.
Available components
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 Security98
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 31 of 96 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 (Apache-2.0).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 26 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability74
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 991 tokens (~110/item across 9 items; 9 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management90
- Stability observed for 27 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage92
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 77% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 9 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 9 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
How do I install the aboard MCP server?
aboard runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y aboard-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 · aboard-mcp-server
claude mcp add me-untype-aboard -- npx -y aboard-mcp-server
{
"mcpServers": {
"me-untype-aboard": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"aboard-mcp-server"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"me-untype-aboard": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"aboard-mcp-server"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add me-untype-aboard -- npx -y aboard-mcp-server
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"me-untype-aboard": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"npx",
"-y",
"aboard-mcp-server"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add me-untype-aboard --command npx --arg -y --arg aboard-mcp-server
mcp_servers:
me-untype-aboard:
command: "npx"
args: ["-y", "aboard-mcp-server"] {
"McpServers": {
"me-untype-aboard": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "npx",
"Arguments": [
"-y",
"aboard-mcp-server"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add me-untype-aboard -t stdio -c npx -a -y aboard-mcp-server
{
"mcpServers": {
"me-untype-aboard": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"aboard-mcp-server"
]
}
}
} 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.
- 20 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 16 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 14 Sept 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.
- 12 Sept 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.
- 9 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 7 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 5 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 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 20 Sept 2026 · Analysed npm/aboard-mcp-server@0.1.1
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 →
Dependencies 96 packages
| Packages resolved | 96 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 31 |
| 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 →
get_claim Get claim ~73
Fetch one claim by id (e.g. 'M4', 'IS1') with its full JSON-LD: sources, observations, author attribution, incoming/outgoing edges, attached forecasts, and dossier if present.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | Claim id, e.g. 'M4' or 'IS1'. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_dossier Get dossier ~74
Fetch the dual-dossier debate (pro/con arguments and ranked cruxes) attached to a claim. Pass the contested claim's id (e.g. 'M4'). Dossiers are embedded in the claim response under aboard:dossier.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | string | yes | Id of the claim the dossier is attached to. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_forecast Get forecast ~102
Fetch forecast(s). Pass a claim id (e.g. 'M4') to get all forecasts attached to that claim, or a forecast id (e.g. 'F4') to get that one forecast. The aboard API has no dedicated forecast endpoint, so a forecast id is resolved by scanning the full graph.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | A claim id (e.g. 'M4') or a forecast id (e.g. 'F4'). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_graph Get graph ~36
Fetch the full claim graph as JSON-LD: every claim, edge, forecast, and dossier across all domains. Verbatim API response.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_claims List claims ~66
List every claim as a compact summary (id, kind, title, domain, confidence). Optionally filter by domain (e.g. 'inequality', 'democratic_backsliding').
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | string | – | Restrict results to this domain. Omit for all domains. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
propose_claim Propose a claim ~176
Opens a pull request adding one claim to data/<domain>/claims/. The claim id, timestamp, and authorship are stamped server-side from your agent token — do not send them. At least one real source is required. The PR is NEVER auto-merged: a human reviews it and CI must pass. Requires ABOARD_AGENT_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence | number | yes | – |
| domain | string | yes | Existing domain, e.g. 'inequality'. New domains need a human. |
| kind | string | yes | – |
| rationale | string | yes | Why this claim belongs in the graph. Becomes the PR body. |
| sources | array | yes | At least one real source. URLs must resolve to a real landing page. |
| statement | string | yes | The claim itself. Becomes the file body. |
| title | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
propose_dossier Propose a dual-dossier ~181
Opens a pull request creating a COMPLETE two-sided dossier — a steel-manned pro case and con case, plus optional ranked cruxes — for a contested claim that has none. Both sides are required; a dossier is inherently two-sided. Refuses if the claim already has a dossier (it will not overwrite a curated one). The authoring agent is stamped server-side. NEVER auto-merged. Requires ABOARD_AGENT_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claimId | string | yes | The contested claim (must exist and lack a dossier). |
| con | object | yes | The steel-manned case AGAINST it. |
| cruxes | array | – | Ranked cruxes: questions whose resolution would move the disagreement. |
| pro | object | yes | The steel-manned case FOR the claim. |
| rationale | string | yes | Why this dossier belongs. Becomes the PR body. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
propose_edge Propose an edge ~160
Opens a pull request adding one directed edge between two existing claims. The edge id and its target file (a domain's edges.yaml, or cross_domain_edges.yaml when the endpoints span domains) are determined server-side — do not send an id. The PR is NEVER auto-merged: a human reviews it and CI must pass. Requires ABOARD_AGENT_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | string | yes | Source claim id (must already exist). |
| kind | string | yes | – |
| rationale | string | yes | What makes this relation hold. Required; becomes the PR body. |
| sources | array | – | Optional evidence for the relation. URLs must resolve to real pages. |
| strength | number | yes | – |
| to | string | yes | Target claim id (must already exist). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
propose_forecast_prediction Propose a forecast prediction ~123
Opens a pull request appending one prediction to an existing forecast's predictions list. The authoring agent and timestamp are stamped server-side. The PR is NEVER auto-merged: a human reviews it and CI must pass. Requires ABOARD_AGENT_TOKEN.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dataAnchors | array | – | Optional sources anchoring the estimate. |
| forecastId | string | yes | Id of an existing forecast (e.g. F4, IF1). |
| probability | number | yes | – |
| reasoning | string | yes | Why this probability. Required; stored as the prediction's reasoning. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the aboard MCP server?
aboard is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as me.untype/aboard. Falsifiable claims about systemic problems: causal graph, forecasts, dossiers. This page covers its npm package (aboard-mcp-server).
Is the aboard MCP server safe to use?
aboard scores 82 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 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 aboard MCP server expose?
aboard exposes 9 tools: list_claims, get_claim, get_graph, get_forecast, get_dossier, and 4 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 991 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the aboard MCP server still maintained?
aboard is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 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 aboard MCP server under?
aboard declares the Apache-2.0 licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.