org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard
REMOTE · PATHGUARD-V2.UP.RAILWAY.APP · SCANNED SEP 29
Crypto transaction safety tool — screens addresses and transactions for scam risk.
Available components
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 Security57
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 5 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 Usability58
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Tool/resource definitions use about 232 tokens (~46/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 Management53
- Stability observed for 16 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 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 5 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
How do I install the org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server?
org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard is a hosted endpoint at https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/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 · pathguard-v2.up.railway.app
claude mcp add --transport http org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard 'https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard": {
"url": "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard] url = "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard --url 'https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard:
url: "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard -t streamable-http -u 'https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"org-cieltech-pathguard-pathguard": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 28 Sept 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 24 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Sept 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.
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 29 Sept 2026 · Probed https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp/ · Declared URL https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=*.up.railway.app | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 27 Sept 2026 | 26 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 618edc56941aa1165ddb080bf9f799eb7c1 |
| SANs: *.up.railway.app, up.railway.app | ||||||
| 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 pathguard-v2.up.railway.app. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| app. | present | 23684 | 8 | Verified |
| railway.app. | absent | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 3 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp | Redirected | 307 | /mcp/ |
| streamable-http · followed | https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp/ | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/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 →
check_transaction ~42
Check one crypto transaction for scams, address mistakes, and other risk signals.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| amount | – | – | – |
| chain | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_transactions_batch ~71
Check up to 1,000 crypto transactions in one request. Returns a compact summary by default so large batches do not overwhelm an AI agent's context. Set detail_level='full' when individual results are needed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail_level | string | – | – |
| items | array | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_usage_status ~23
Check your current PathGuard plan, monthly scan quota, and usage.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
preflight_transaction ~54
Run PathGuard's full transaction checks and return an ALLOW, REVIEW, or BLOCK decision.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| amount | – | – | – |
| chain | string | – | – |
| raw_amount_input | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
report_scam_address ~42
Report a suspected scam address to PathGuard's community reporting system.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| chain | string | – | – |
| reason | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server?
org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard. Crypto transaction safety tool, screens addresses and transactions for scam risk. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://pathguard-v2.up.railway.app/mcp).
Is the org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server safe to use?
org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard scores 66 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 org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server expose?
org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard exposes 5 tools: check_transaction, preflight_transaction, check_transactions_batch, report_scam_address, get_usage_status. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 232 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard MCP server still maintained?
org.cieltech.pathguard/pathguard is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 29 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.