WebArm24
REMOTE · WEBARM24.ONLINE
AI automation platform (n8n/Zapier alternative): build, schedule and run workflows from your agent.
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 53% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Workflow Automation
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 Security89
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, but the challenge carries no valid RFC 9728 metadata, so a client cannot discover where to get a token. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability35
- 0% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Fail
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 2693 tokens (~42/item across 64 items; 63 tools + 1 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management10
- Stability observed for 3 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 Safety75
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- 0 of 7 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation; "send_email" implies "send" and declares no destructiveHint at all, which the MCP spec reads as destructive by default. See how to fix → Fail
- An AI judge read all 65 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
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
- Tool “credits_history” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- New tool “browser_paste_html” functional
- New tool “browser_press_key” functional
- “credits_history” added an optional parameter “kind” cosmetic
- “credits_history” added an optional parameter “limit” cosmetic
- “credits_history” added an optional parameter “offset” cosmetic
- 4 Nov 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.
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 2 Nov 26 66
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://webarm24.online/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=webarm24.online | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 14 Oct 2026 | 12 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ad70528b0ae2b6b7099780eda55a0e8a71 |
| SANs: webarm24.online | ||||||
| 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 webarm24.online. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| online. | present | 30961 | 13 | Verified |
| webarm24.online. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Challenged, unverified
The endpoint asked for a token, but we could not retrieve and validate the RFC 9728 metadata that tells a client how to obtain one.
| Result | Challenged, unverified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
WWW-Authenticate challenge Bearer
Bearer| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
Protected resource metadata
| Retrieved | No |
|---|---|
| Problem | no_resource_metadata |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://webarm24.online/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://webarm24.online/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://webarm24.online/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 →
schedule_import ~20
Import an exported automation.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | object | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
schedule_list ~16
List automations (single-task schedules).
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
schedule_run ~34
Run an automation now (synchronous; costs schedule_run credits).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| schedule_id | string | yes | – |
| variables | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
schedule_update ~31
Patch an automation (ScheduleUpdate fields).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | object | yes | – |
| schedule_id | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
send_email ~60
Send an email through the server SMTP (subject to server allowlists/limits). Costs 1 mcp_call.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | string | yes | – |
| is_html | boolean | – | – |
| subject | string | yes | – |
| to | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_delete ~19
Delete a store.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_file_delete ~21
Delete a stored file.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_file_get ~33
Download a file as base64 (limited to 8 MiB of base64).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_file_put ~46
Upload a file (base64 content). Size caps: USER_FILES_FILE_MAX_BYTES / per-user total.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_base64 | string | yes | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_files_list ~20
List stored files.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_list ~14
List your JSON/text stores.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_read ~19
Read a store.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
storage_write ~45
Write a store (mode 'auto' keeps JSON, 'text' stores a string).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | string | – | – |
| name | string | yes | – |
| value | – | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the WebArm24 MCP server?
WebArm24 is a hosted endpoint at https://webarm24.online/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 · webarm24.online
claude mcp add --transport http online-webarm24-webarm24 'https://webarm24.online/mcp'
What is the WebArm24 MCP server?
WebArm24 is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as online.webarm24/webarm24. AI automation platform (n8n/Zapier alternative): build, schedule and run workflows from your agent. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://webarm24.online/mcp).
Is the WebArm24 MCP server safe to use?
WebArm24 scores 67 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 WebArm24 MCP server expose?
WebArm24 exposes 63 tools: browser_navigate, browser_screenshot, browser_click, browser_click_at, browser_fill, and 58 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 2,631 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the WebArm24 MCP server require authentication?
Yes. WebArm24 asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the WebArm24 MCP server still maintained?
WebArm24 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.