Celo x402 Facilitator
REMOTE · API.X402.CELO.ORG
Check supported assets and verify x402 payments on Celo
Available components
Last scanned (18 hours ago)
Scores higher than 69% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Crypto and Web3
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 Security80
- 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
- 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 Usability71
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 560 tokens (~112/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- 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 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 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 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 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 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- 27 Oct 26 73
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://api.x402.celo.org/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=api.x402.celo.org | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 3 Nov 2026 | 1 Feb 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 645874bd00dcef19c82ca094df58e194c01 |
| SANs: api.x402.celo.org | ||||||
| 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 api.x402.celo.org. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| org. | DS published | 725, 26974 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| celo.org. | 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 |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://api.x402.celo.org/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.x402.celo.org/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://api.x402.celo.org/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 →
get_config Assets, fee and free credits ~72
Every settleable asset with its address, decimals, transfer method and EIP-712 domain values, plus the pricing model (gas at cost, plus a fee in basis points on the payment value when the asset has a USD price), the gas fallback and the free-credit allowances. Same answer as GET /api/config.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_health Facilitator health ~24
Whether the facilitator behind this host is answering. Same answer as GET /health.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_supported Supported payment kinds ~34
The (x402Version, scheme, network) kinds and extensions this facilitator verifies and settles. Same answer as GET /supported.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
payment_status Has an authorization been used? ~247
Whether a signed payment authorization has been used on chain, for a client whose settle reply was lost. Answers unspent, consumed or expired from the chain (EIP-3009 authorizationState, or the Permit2 nonce bitmap). unspent is not final: the authorization can still be used until validBefore, and a settlement already in flight reads as unspent here. Only consumed and expired are final; expired is only reported 5 s after validBefore, so a payment still in flight is not called final. The settled and pending states need the owning API key and are only served over HTTP. Same answer as GET /settle/status, and it spends the same per-IP allowance.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | string | yes | Token address the payment was signed for. |
| nonce | string | yes | EIP-3009: the 32-byte hex nonce. Permit2: the nonce as a decimal or 0x-hex uint256. |
| payer | string | yes | Address that signed the authorization. |
| validBefore | integer | – | Optional. The authorization's validBefore (Permit2: deadline), in unix seconds, so an unused one more than 5 s past it reads as expired. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
verify_payment Verify an x402 payment ~97
Check a signed x402 payment against its requirements: signature, amount, balance and simulation. Moves no funds. Same answer as POST /verify, and it spends the same per-IP allowance.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| paymentPayload | object | yes | The PaymentPayload the buyer signed. |
| paymentRequirements | object | yes | The PaymentRequirements the resource server stated. |
| x402Version | integer | – | x402 protocol version of the payload, e.g. 2. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server?
Celo x402 Facilitator is a hosted endpoint at https://api.x402.celo.org/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 · api.x402.celo.org
claude mcp add --transport http org-celo-x402-facilitator 'https://api.x402.celo.org/mcp'
What is the Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server?
Celo x402 Facilitator is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as org.celo/x402-facilitator. Check supported assets and verify x402 payments on Celo. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.x402.celo.org/mcp).
Is the Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server safe to use?
Celo x402 Facilitator scores 77 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 Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server expose?
Celo x402 Facilitator exposes 5 tools: get_supported, get_config, get_health, verify_payment, payment_status. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 474 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Celo x402 Facilitator without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server still maintained?
Celo x402 Facilitator 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 Celo x402 Facilitator MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Celo x402 Facilitator, 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.