MediaSFU
REMOTE · MCP.MEDIASFU.COM · 2 COMPONENTS
Video, voice, AI agent and SIP calls: create rooms, place calls, read recordings and usage.
Available components
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 55% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Communication
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 Security63
- 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 call this server, and 159 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 Usability49
- AI-judged instruction clarity (poor).Fail
- Tool/resource definitions use about 7567 tokens (~47/item across 159 items; 159 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management63
- Stability observed for 19 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage85
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 55% 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 159 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 160 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 (12)
- TLS certificate
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- 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 hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Authorization in Endpoint SecurityAuthorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 159 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
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.
- 5 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.
- 3 Nov 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.
- 1 Nov 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.
- 30 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.
- 28 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.
- 25 Oct 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.
- 23 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.
- 21 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.
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://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=mcp.mediasfu.com | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 2 Nov 2026 | 31 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 6ef532846ef86cf12c45e048c088e9d26fd |
| SANs: mcp.mediasfu.com | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.mediasfu.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| mediasfu.com. | No DS | 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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp |
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 →
vue::fix.suggest ~23
MediaSFU Vue :: fix.suggest (remediation).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::integration.plan ~46
MediaSFU Vue :: integration.plan (planner).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| appType | string | – | Application type. |
| backendMode | string | – | – |
| requestedFeatures | array | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::room.bootstrap ~59
MediaSFU Vue :: room.bootstrap (command).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| execute | boolean | – | Execute the trusted manifest command; omitted means dry-run. |
| projectRoot | string | – | Absolute path to the consumer project. Defaults to the MCP process working directory. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::room.flow.explain ~34
MediaSFU Vue :: room.flow.explain (flow-explainer).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::runtime.diagnose ~39
MediaSFU Vue :: runtime.diagnose (diagnostic).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| errorText | string | yes | Sanitized error or log excerpt. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::sdk.recommend ~40
MediaSFU Vue :: sdk.recommend (advisor).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| appType | string | – | Application type. |
| requestedFeatures | array | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::security.proxy.rooms ~31
MediaSFU Vue :: security.proxy.rooms (security-guide).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| backendMode | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::ui.mode.recommend ~42
MediaSFU Vue :: ui.mode.recommend (ui-advisor).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| customizationLevel | string | – | – |
| ownershipLevel | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
vue::ui.overrides.guide ~47
MediaSFU Vue :: ui.overrides.guide (ui-overrides).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | string | – | – |
| mode | string | – | SDK-supported UI ownership mode. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the MediaSFU MCP server?
MediaSFU is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.mediasfu.com/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 · mcp.mediasfu.com
claude mcp add --transport http mediasfu-mcp-sdk-tools 'https://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp'
What is the MediaSFU MCP server?
MediaSFU is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.MediaSFU/mcp-sdk-tools. Video, voice, AI agent and SIP calls: create rooms, place calls, read recordings and usage. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.mediasfu.com/mcp).
Is the MediaSFU MCP server safe to use?
MediaSFU scores 70 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 MediaSFU MCP server expose?
MediaSFU exposes 159 tools: android::sdk.recommend, android::app.scaffold, android::integration.plan, android::env.preflight, android::room.bootstrap, and 154 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 7,522 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the MediaSFU MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to MediaSFU without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the MediaSFU MCP server still maintained?
MediaSFU 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.
What did VerifyMCP test on the MediaSFU MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on MediaSFU, covering TLS certificate, HTTPS, HSTS header, DNSSEC and 8 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about MediaSFU: Authorization. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.