RevRule by Payload
MCPB · REVRULE.MCPB
RevRule by Payload: read entitlement graphs, review payout evidence, dry-run revenue events.
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 84% 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 Security13
- 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
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 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 19 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability79
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 256 tokens (~85/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management73
- Stability observed for 22 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 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities20
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2024-11-05; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 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 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 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 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 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.
- 20 Oct 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.
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/Payloadhq/revrule-mcp/releases/download/v1.1.0/revrule.mcpb@1.1.0
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 →
revrule_get_graph ~63
Fetch one of your RevRule revenue entitlement graphs by id: its participants, rules, and ledger wiring. Read-only. (Rail route: GET /v1/graphs/{graph_id}.)
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph_id | string | yes | The RevRule graph id. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
revrule_list_payout_evidence ~81
List payout evidence recorded for a graph: verified payouts linked back to the original entitlement ledger entries (transaction hash, log index, block data, authorizing signature). Read-only. (Rail route: GET /v1/graphs/{graph_id}/payout-evidence.)
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph_id | string | yes | The RevRule graph id. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
revrule_simulate_event ~112
Dry-run a revenue event against a graph's rules and see what the rules would produce, with ZERO side effects: nothing is recorded, no payout is prepared or submitted. The event payload is wrapped in {event} for the existing rail REST API. (Rail route: POST /v1/graphs/{graph_id}/simulate.)
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | object | yes | The revenue event payload to simulate, passed through to the rail as-is. |
| graph_id | string | yes | The RevRule graph id. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the RevRule by Payload MCP server?
RevRule by Payload 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. Before opening it, check the file's SHA-256 matches the one the MCP registry declares for it, 37ba172465056c1b32297aef70a73f918260053d66d981f758c9d1d777afaa2b; the commands to do that are on this page. If it does not match, do not open it.
mcpb · revrule.mcpb
Download bundleCheck the download matches the SHA-256 the MCP registry declares before you open it. If it does not match, do not open the file.
SHA-256
37ba172465056c1b32297aef70a73f918260053d66d981f758c9d1d777afaa2b
macOS / Linux
echo "37ba172465056c1b32297aef70a73f918260053d66d981f758c9d1d777afaa2b revrule.mcpb" | shasum -a 256 -c
Windows (PowerShell)
(Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 .\revrule.mcpb).Hash -eq "37ba172465056c1b32297aef70a73f918260053d66d981f758c9d1d777afaa2b"
Run it in the folder you saved the bundle to, then open the file with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the RevRule by Payload MCP server?
RevRule by Payload is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.payload-tools/revrule-mcp. RevRule by Payload: read entitlement graphs, review payout evidence, dry-run revenue events. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/Payloadhq/revrule-mcp/releases/download/v1.1.0/revrule.mcpb).
Is the RevRule by Payload MCP server safe to use?
RevRule by Payload scores 52 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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 RevRule by Payload MCP server expose?
RevRule by Payload exposes 3 tools: revrule_get_graph, revrule_list_payout_evidence, revrule_simulate_event. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 256 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the RevRule by Payload MCP server under?
RevRule by Payload declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.