GLEIF MCP Server
MCPB · LINUX-X64 · 6 COMPONENTS
Access the GLEIF LEI database for company verification, KYC, and ownership research.
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 88% of MCPB servers
Category Finance and Payments
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: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
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 (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 178 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability73
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1864 tokens (~155/item across 12 items; 12 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
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 12 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 13 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
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.
Checks we ran (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)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.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
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 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 −1
- Stability: pass → 0.93 functional
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 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 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.
- 23 Oct 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.
- 21 Oct 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.
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 mcpb/https://github.com/olgasafonova/gleif-mcp-server/releases/download/v0.9.0/gleif-mcp-server-linux-amd64.mcpb@0.9.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | mcpb |
| 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 →
autocomplete ~119
Get entity name suggestions from a prefix (min 2 characters). USE WHEN: "suggest companies starting with X", "autocomplete company name", user is typing a name and needs quick suggestions. For full search results with pagination, use search_entity instead. Returns name suggestions with LEI and legal name for each match. FAILS WHEN: prefix is shorter than 2 characters. Falls back to fuzzy search automatically if the autocomplete endpoint is unavailable.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | Max suggestions (default 10) |
| prefix | string | yes | Name prefix to complete |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
batch_lei_lookup ~119
Look up multiple LEI records in one request (max 100). USE WHEN: "look up these LEIs", "batch lookup", user provides 2+ LEI codes. Faster than calling lei_lookup repeatedly. FAILS WHEN: list is empty (provide at least one LEI), more than 100 LEIs (split into multiple calls), any individual LEI has invalid format (fix that specific LEI; the error message includes its position).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| leis | string | yes | Comma-separated LEI codes (max 100) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_lei_issuer ~115
Get details about a specific LEI issuer (Local Operating Unit / LOU) by ID. USE WHEN: "details on this LOU", "issuer info". Returns issuer name, country, status, website, and count of sponsored LEIs. For all issuers worldwide, use list_lei_issuers. FAILS WHEN: issuer ID not found (use list_lei_issuers to get valid IDs).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer_id | string | yes | LEI issuer ID (4-32 alphanumeric characters) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_relationships ~140
Get corporate ownership and fund relationships for an entity. USE WHEN: "who owns X?", "parent company", "subsidiaries", "fund manager" Types: direct-parent, ultimate-parent, children, fund-manager, umbrella-fund, sub-funds. Returns relationship records with related entity LEI, legal name, relationship type, and status. FAILS WHEN: LEI format invalid (must be 20 alphanumeric chars), no relationships of requested type exist (entity may have no parent; check get_reporting_exceptions for why ownership data is missing).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | string | yes | LEI code |
| type | string | – | Relationship type |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_reporting_exceptions ~121
Explains why parent/ownership data may be missing for an entity. USE WHEN: "why no parent info?", "reporting exceptions", "missing ownership data". Returns list of Level 2 exceptions, each with type (NON_CONSOLIDATING, NO_KNOWN_PERSON, NATURAL_PERSONS, NON_PUBLIC), category, and reference entity. Empty list when entity has no exceptions (parent data is complete). FAILS WHEN: LEI format invalid (must be 20 alphanumeric chars).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | string | yes | LEI code |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
lei_lookup ~147
Get full details for a specific LEI code (legal name, address, jurisdiction, status, managing LOU, renewal dates). USE WHEN: "look up LEI", "LEI details", "who is HWUPKR0MPOU8FGXBT394?" For validating format and status only, use validate_lei. For multiple LEIs at once, use batch_lei_lookup. FAILS WHEN: LEI is not exactly 20 alphanumeric characters (fix format and retry), LEI not found in GLEIF database (entity may not have an LEI; try search_entity by name instead).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | string | yes | 20-character LEI code |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_lei_issuers ~79
List all LEI issuers (Local Operating Units / LOUs) worldwide. USE WHEN: "show all LOUs", "which organizations issue LEIs?", "LEI issuer directory". Returns all issuers with name, country, status, and sponsored LEI count. For one specific issuer, use get_lei_issuer.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_by_bic ~139
Find a bank's LEI from its BIC/SWIFT code (8 or 11 characters). USE WHEN: "find LEI from BIC", "BIC to LEI", "SWIFT code lookup", user provides a BIC code. Returns matching entity with LEI, legal name, country, and registration status. FAILS WHEN: BIC is not 8 or 11 characters (fix input), no entity mapped to this BIC (not all banks have LEIs; try search_entity with the bank name instead).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| bic | string | yes | BIC/SWIFT code (8 or 11 chars) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_by_country ~132
List entities registered in a specific country. USE WHEN: "companies in Germany", "LEIs from US", "entities in country X". Pass ISO 2-letter code (US, GB, DE). Returns entity list with LEI, legal name, and status for each. Paginated. FAILS WHEN: country code is not a 2-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (use "US" not "USA", "GB" not "UK").
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | yes | 2-letter ISO country code |
| limit | integer | – | Max results (default 20) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_by_isin ~112
Find the issuer's LEI from a securities ISIN code (12 characters). USE WHEN: "who issued ISIN US0378331005?", "ISIN to LEI", user provides an ISIN. Returns issuer entity with LEI, legal name, country, and registration status. FAILS WHEN: ISIN is not 12 characters (fix input), no issuer found for this ISIN (some securities lack LEI mapping).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| isin | string | yes | 12-character ISIN code |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_entity ~125
Search for legal entities by name with fuzzy matching and pagination. For quick name suggestions, use autocomplete instead. USE WHEN: "find company X", "search for X", "look up company X" FAILS WHEN: no results found (try autocomplete for name suggestions, or check spelling; fuzzy matching is on by default).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| fuzzy | boolean | – | Use fuzzy matching (default true) |
| limit | integer | – | Max results per page (default 20) |
| page | integer | – | Page number (default 1) |
| query | string | yes | Company name to search |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
validate_lei ~110
Check if an LEI code is valid and active. USE WHEN: "is this LEI valid?", "verify LEI", "check LEI format". Performs format (20 chars), check digit (ISO 17442), and database status checks. For full entity details, use lei_lookup instead. NOTE: Never returns an error for invalid LEIs; returns valid=false with a reason message instead. Safe to call on untrusted input.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | string | yes | LEI code to validate |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the GLEIF MCP Server server?
GLEIF MCP Server ships as an MCPB bundle, a single file you download and open in an MCP host that supports MCPB bundles, such as Claude Desktop. The host reads the launch command from the bundle's own manifest, so there is no command to copy. The MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check the download against.
mcpb · linux-x64
Download bundleThe MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check it against. Open it with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the GLEIF MCP Server server?
GLEIF MCP Server is listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.olgasafonova/gleif-mcp-server. Access the GLEIF LEI database for company verification, KYC, and ownership research. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/olgasafonova/gleif-mcp-server/releases/download/v0.9.0/gleif-mcp-server-linux-amd64.mcpb).
Is the GLEIF MCP Server server safe to use?
GLEIF MCP Server scores 54 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 GLEIF MCP Server server expose?
GLEIF MCP Server exposes 12 tools: autocomplete, batch_lei_lookup, get_lei_issuer, get_relationships, get_reporting_exceptions, and 7 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,458 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the GLEIF MCP Server server under?
GLEIF MCP Server declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the GLEIF MCP Server server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on GLEIF MCP Server, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about GLEIF MCP Server: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an MCPB bundle, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.