파공넷 경공매
REMOTE · WWW.PAGONG.NET
Korean court auctions, Onbid and bankruptcy sales with expected rental yield and market ratio.
Available components
Last scanned (9 hours ago)
Scores higher than 57% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability56
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1722 tokens (~246/item across 7 items; 7 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 Management30
- Stability observed for 9 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage95
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 85% 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 7 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 supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
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
- Tool “explain_metric” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_court_facts” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_bankruptcy” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_court” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “search_onbid” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 172 → 246 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 91% → 85% ▼ functional
- Server version: 1.0.0 → 1.1.0 functional
- New tool “get_changes” functional
- New tool “get_court_details” functional
- “search_bankruptcy” reworded the description of “sido” cosmetic
- “search_court” reworded the description of “sido” cosmetic
- “search_onbid” reworded the description of “sido” cosmetic
- 2 Nov 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.
- 31 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.
- 29 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.
- 28 Oct 26 +7
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- Tool “explain_metric” changed its title: 파공넷 지표 정의 cosmetic
- Tool “get_court_facts” changed its title: 법원경매 물건 사실 요약 cosmetic
- Tool “search_bankruptcy” changed its title: 파산공매 물건 검색 cosmetic
- Tool “search_court” changed its title: 법원경매 물건 검색 cosmetic
- Tool “search_onbid” changed its title: 공매(온비드) 물건 검색 cosmetic
- 27 Oct 26 62
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 · Probed https://www.pagong.net/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=pagong.net | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 21 Oct 2026 | 19 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 60fd9120112b2211c59e08aecf80068bc98 |
| SANs: *.pagong.net, pagong.net | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of www.pagong.net. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| net. | DS published | 37331 | 13 | Verified |
| pagong.net. | 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 |
|---|---|
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.pagong.net/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.pagong.net/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.pagong.net/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 →
explain_metric 파공넷 지표 정의 ~85
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 파공넷 지표 정의·산식·미산출 조건(llms.txt 「지표 정의」 원문). 예: expected_yield, market_ratio, 실부담.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| metric | string | yes | 지표명(한글 또는 expected_yield·market_ratio·real_cost 등) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_changes 경공매 물건 변화 조회 ~419
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 지난 커서 또는 since 이후 감지된 법원경매·공매·파산공매 물건의 사실 변화를 이전값·새값·감지 시각과 함께 준다. 최근 24시간, 호출당 10건, 시도 필수, 이어받기 3회(한도 오류의 resume_cursor를 cursor로 넣어 재개). 주기 조회는 next_cursor를 이어 쓴다 — since를 매번 새로 주면 지연 구간이 지나 드러난 신규를 놓칠 수 있다. 시장별 제공 범위는 응답의 coverage, 원장 시각은 ledger_as_of를 본다. 추천·판정이 아니다.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | 용도. market을 하나 지정할 때만 |
| cursor | string | – | 이전 응답의 next_cursor 또는 한도 오류의 resume_cursor. 있으면 since 무시, 필터는 같아야 한다 |
| event_types | array | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| market | string | – | – |
| max_min_bid_won | integer | – | 현재 최저입찰가 상한(원) |
| schedule_scope | string | – | schedule_change 범위. rescheduled는 종전 기일이 지나기 전에 옮겨진 것만(기본 all) |
| sido | string | yes | 시도(예: 서울특별시, 경기도, 전남 — 약칭 허용). 광주·전남은 통합특별시 물건을 시군구로 갈라 포함, 전남광주통합특별시는 둘 다 |
| sigungu | string | – | 시군구 정확일치(예: 강남구) |
| since | string | – | 시작 시각(최근 24시간 안, 예: 2026-10-30T09:00:00+09:00). 기본 24시간 전 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_court_details 법원경매 물건 원문 재료 ~269
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 법원경매 물건 1건의 구조화 재료(상세 화면과 같은 값). facts: 건물(건축물대장 표제부·호 전유/공용/분양 면적·전용률·사용승인일·층수, 대지권), 말소기준(일자·종류), 임차인 사실(전입·확정·배당요구·보증금·차임), 관리비 금액, 시세 근거 거래·전월세 거래(목록당 최대 20건), 같은 지번 다른 경매, 기일내역, 정비구역 태그. rules: 파공넷 엔진 규칙 산출값(인수보증금상한·대항요건 등, 규칙 이름 포함). 원문 서술과 개인 이름은 싣지 않는다 — url에서 확인. 없는 섹션은 unknown(확인 못 함). 판정이 아니다.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | string | yes | 사건ID(예: B000513_2025-tg-712_1 또는 B000513_2025타경712_1) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_court_facts 법원경매 물건 사실 요약 ~138
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 법원경매 물건 1건의 사실 요약: 가격·회차·기일, 예상 수익률(산식 입력값 포함), 시세 대비(표본 수·층위), 인수 보증금 유무·추가 인수 사유, 지분 매각 여부. 원문 재료는 get_court_details.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | string | yes | 사건ID(예: B000513_2025-tg-712_1 또는 B000513_2025타경712_1) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_bankruptcy 파산공매 물건 검색 ~178
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 법원 파산공매(파산관재인 매각) 최근 공고 검색(요약+URL, 계산값 없음).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | 최대 10건(페이지 넘김 없음) |
| max_min_bid_won | integer | – | 최저입찰가 상한(원) |
| query | string | – | 검색어(소재지·물건명·사건번호) |
| sido | string | – | 시도(예: 서울특별시, 경기도, 전남 — 약칭 허용). 광주·전남은 통합특별시 물건을 시군구로 갈라 포함, 전남광주통합특별시는 둘 다 |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_court 법원경매 물건 검색 ~367
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 파공넷 법원경매 진행 물건 검색. 각 항목에 사건·소재지·최저가·매각기일·현재 사이클 유찰 횟수와 정본 상세 URL을 준다. 상위 3건만 계산값(예상 수익률+월세 표본 수, 시세 대비+비교 층위, 인수 여부)을 채우고 나머지는 null — url에서 확인. 사실 수치이며 추천·판정이 아니다.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | 용도 |
| limit | integer | – | 최대 10건(페이지 넘김 없음) |
| max_market_ratio_pct | number | – | 시세 대비 상한(퍼센트, 실부담÷시세) |
| max_min_bid_won | integer | – | 최저입찰가 상한(원) |
| min_expected_yield_pct | number | – | 예상 수익률 하한(퍼센트) |
| no_assumption_only | boolean | – | 인수 보증금 없음이 확인된 물건만 |
| query | string | – | 검색어(소재지·물건명·사건번호) |
| sido | string | – | 시도(예: 서울특별시, 경기도, 전남 — 약칭 허용). 광주·전남은 통합특별시 물건을 시군구로 갈라 포함, 전남광주통합특별시는 둘 다 |
| sigungu | string | – | 시군구 정확일치(예: 강남구) |
| sort | string | – | 정렬(기본 deadline=매각기일 임박순) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_onbid 공매(온비드) 물건 검색 ~190
[파공넷 경매·법원경매·공매] 캠코 온비드 공매 진행 물건 검색(요약+URL, 계산값 없음).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | 최대 10건(페이지 넘김 없음) |
| max_min_bid_won | integer | – | 최저입찰가 상한(원) |
| query | string | – | 검색어(소재지·물건명·사건번호) |
| sido | string | – | 시도(예: 서울특별시, 경기도, 전남 — 약칭 허용). 광주·전남은 통합특별시 물건을 시군구로 갈라 포함, 전남광주통합특별시는 둘 다 |
| sigungu | string | – | 시군구 정확일치(예: 강남구) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the 파공넷 경공매 MCP server?
파공넷 경공매 is a hosted endpoint at https://www.pagong.net/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 · www.pagong.net
claude mcp add --transport http net-pagong-auctions 'https://www.pagong.net/mcp'
What is the 파공넷 경공매 MCP server?
파공넷 경공매 is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as net.pagong/auctions. Korean court auctions, Onbid and bankruptcy sales with expected rental yield and market ratio. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.pagong.net/mcp).
Is the 파공넷 경공매 MCP server safe to use?
파공넷 경공매 scores 71 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 파공넷 경공매 MCP server expose?
파공넷 경공매 exposes 7 tools: search_court, get_court_facts, get_court_details, explain_metric, search_onbid, and 2 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,646 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the 파공넷 경공매 MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to 파공넷 경공매 without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the 파공넷 경공매 MCP server still maintained?
파공넷 경공매 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 파공넷 경공매 MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on 파공넷 경공매, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. 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.