zanadir
OCI · DOCKER.IO/MUSTACHECASE/ZANADIR
Find what a repository's CI is missing, and which security checks cannot fail the build.
Available components
Last scanned (2 hours ago)
Scores higher than 60% of OCI servers
Category CI/CD and DevOps
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 Security0
- 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 could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: this artifact ships no SBOM or dependency manifest, so there is no dependency list to read.Unverified
Provenance & Transparency35
- 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 3 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability75
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 360 tokens (~180/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management43
- Stability observed for 13 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
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 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.
- 2 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.
- 1 Nov 26 0
- Stability: 0.27 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- Package version: 0.26.1 → 0.28.0 functional
- Package version: 0.26.1 → 0.27.0 functional
- 31 Oct 26 +1
- Package version: 0.24.2 → 0.26.1 functional
- Package version: 0.24.2 → 0.26.0 functional
- Package version: 0.24.2 → 0.25.0 functional
- 29 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.
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.13 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- Package version: 0.23.0 → 0.24.2 functional
- Package version: 0.23.0 → 0.24.1 functional
- Package version: 0.23.0 → 0.24.0 functional
- 27 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.
- 26 Oct 26 0
- Package version: 0.22.0 → 0.23.0 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 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed oci/docker.io/mustachecase/zanadir@0.28.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | oci |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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 →
fix CI configuration for the gaps ~113
Prints ready-to-paste CI configuration for each uncovered category, for the CI platform the repository uses. It changes no files: adapt the snippets into the existing workflows.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | string | – | path to a local checkout; defaults to the current directory |
| excludedCategories | array | – | categories that do not apply to this repository, such as Performance Testing |
| repo | string | – | a GitHub repository to read without cloning, as github.com/owner/name or github.com/owner/name@ref; instead of dir |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
scan Grade the CI ~247
Reads the repository's CI configuration (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, CircleCI, Bitbucket Pipelines, Azure Pipelines, Jenkins) and reports, as JSON: - score: categories covered out of those that apply; - uncovered: categories with no tool at all (SCA, secrets detection, SAST, linting, tests, coverage, licences, end-of-life, IaC, supply chain, workflow security, performance testing), each with tools that fit the repository's languages; - weakened: controls that are present but cannot fail a build, graded partial (not on every change), advisory (continue-on-error, || true, --exit-code 0, schedule-only) or unknown (behind a condition); - notApplicable and platforms. Run it before changing CI, and again after, to confirm the change.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | string | – | path to a local checkout; defaults to the current directory |
| excludedCategories | array | – | categories that do not apply to this repository, such as Performance Testing |
| repo | string | – | a GitHub repository to read without cloning, as github.com/owner/name or github.com/owner/name@ref; instead of dir |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the zanadir MCP server?
zanadir runs locally as a container image, launched with docker run --rm -i -e GITHUB_TOKEN docker.io/mustachecase/zanadir:0.28.0. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 3 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
oci · docker.io/mustachecase/zanadir
claude mcp add mustachecase-zanadir -- docker run --rm -i -e GITHUB_TOKEN docker.io/mustachecase/zanadir:0.28.0
This image reads GITHUB_TOKEN. Set it in your client's env block for this server; docker run -e passes it through to the container.
What is the zanadir MCP server?
zanadir is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.MustacheCase/zanadir. Find what a repository's CI is missing, and which security checks cannot fail the build. This page covers its container image (docker.io/mustachecase/zanadir).
Is the zanadir MCP server safe to use?
zanadir scores 43 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 zanadir MCP server expose?
zanadir exposes 2 tools: scan, fix. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 360 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the zanadir MCP server still maintained?
zanadir 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.