Verify API
PYPI · VERIFY-API-MCP · SCANNED SEP 20
Evidence-backed verification for citations, packages, repos, cases, filings, drugs, x402 sellers.
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 Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised native-build step with no shell scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 1 of 32 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency32
- 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
- License check failed: no license is declared. See how to fix → Fail
- Actively maintained (last published 16 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability66
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 747 tokens (~93/item across 8 items; 8 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management70
- Stability observed for 21 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 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
How do I install the Verify API MCP server?
Verify API runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx verify-api-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · verify-api-mcp
claude mcp add mgdsn-verify-api-mcp -- uvx verify-api-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"mgdsn-verify-api-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"verify-api-mcp"
]
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"mgdsn-verify-api-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"verify-api-mcp"
]
}
}
} codex mcp add mgdsn-verify-api-mcp -- uvx verify-api-mcp
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"mgdsn-verify-api-mcp": {
"type": "local",
"command": [
"uvx",
"verify-api-mcp"
],
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add mgdsn-verify-api-mcp --command uvx --arg verify-api-mcp
mcp_servers:
mgdsn-verify-api-mcp:
command: "uvx"
args: ["verify-api-mcp"] {
"McpServers": {
"mgdsn-verify-api-mcp": {
"Transport": "stdio",
"Command": "uvx",
"Arguments": [
"verify-api-mcp"
]
}
}
} assistant mcp add mgdsn-verify-api-mcp -t stdio -c uvx -a verify-api-mcp
{
"mcpServers": {
"mgdsn-verify-api-mcp": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"verify-api-mcp"
]
}
}
} 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.
- 19 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 16 Sept 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.
- 15 Sept 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 14 Sept 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 12 Sept 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.
- 10 Sept 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.
- 8 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 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 pypi/verify-api-mcp@0.6.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 32 packages
| Packages resolved | 32 |
|---|---|
| No linked repository | 1 |
| 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 →
verify_case ~78
Verify a legal case citation: does it exist, and does the given case name match the canonical record? Catches a fabricated case citation, including a real-looking citation number paired with an invented case name. Checked against CourtListener. Does not check whether a case is still good law.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_name | – | – | – |
| citation | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_citation ~93
Verify a citation: does it exist, is it retracted, and do the given title/authors/year/journal match the canonical record? Checked against Crossref (includes Retraction Watch data) with OpenAlex as a fallback when no DOI is given. Provide a doi and/or a title.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| authors | – | – | – |
| doi | – | – | – |
| journal | – | – | – |
| title | – | – | – |
| year | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_drug ~105
Verify an FDA drug record: given a claim_type ('approval', 'ndc', or 'recall') and its identifier, does that record actually exist, and does the given name match the canonical record? Checked against openFDA. Catches a fabricated or misattributed drug approval, NDC listing, or recall citation. Existence/status only, not medical advice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | string | yes | – |
| expected_name | – | – | – |
| identifier | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_filing ~107
Verify an SEC filing: given a filer's CIK and a claimed accession number, does that filing actually exist, and does its form type/filing date match what's claimed? Checked against SEC EDGAR's submissions API. Catches a fabricated or misattributed filing citation, including a real-looking accession number paired with an invented form type or date.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| accession_number | string | yes | – |
| cik | string | yes | – |
| filed_date | – | – | – |
| form_type | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_package ~95
Verify a package: does it exist, is it deprecated or yanked, and does it have known vulnerabilities? Checked against the npm/PyPI/crates.io registry plus OSV.dev advisories. Catches an agent installing a hallucinated or squatted package name. ecosystem must be one of: npm, pypi, crates.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecosystem | string | yes | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| version | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_repo ~66
Verify a GitHub repo: does it exist, is it archived or disabled? Catches an agent recommending or depending on a repo that's been renamed, taken down, or abandoned. Checked against the GitHub REST API.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | string | yes | – |
| repo | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_seller ~129
Verify an x402 seller before paying it: does it exist and respond with a well-formed 402 challenge, is its own declared input/output schema internally consistent, and is its payout address sanctioned? Checked live against the seller itself plus a sanctions oracle and on-chain wallet history (Base payTo addresses only). Confirms the checkable things about a seller check out -- not a guarantee of trustworthiness, which no free source can promise. method defaults to POST; set it to GET if that's what triggers the seller's 402.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | – | – | – |
| resource_url | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_url ~74
Verify a URL: does it resolve, what's the final status and redirect chain, is it archived on the Wayback Machine, and (optionally) does expected text appear on the page. Checked via direct fetch and the Internet Archive.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| expected_content | – | – | – |
| expected_date | – | – | – |
| url | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the Verify API MCP server?
Verify API is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.mgdsn/verify-api-mcp. Evidence-backed verification for citations, packages, repos, cases, filings, drugs, x402 sellers. This page covers its PyPI package (verify-api-mcp).
Is the Verify API MCP server safe to use?
Verify API scores 73 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 20 September 2026. 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 Verify API MCP server expose?
Verify API exposes 8 tools: verify_citation, verify_url, verify_package, verify_repo, verify_case, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 747 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Verify API MCP server still maintained?
Verify API 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.