ToolScout Software Recommendation
REMOTE · TRYTOOLSCOUT.ORG
Which software to buy: shortlists, comparisons and alternatives with reasons and recorded prices.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 54% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Productivity and Notes
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. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. 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 Usability57
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1455 tokens (~363/item across 4 items; 4 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 Management0
- Stability check failed: schema churn in the 30 days we've observed: 1 tool removals, 0 breaking changes, 0 auth/transport breaks, 4 additions. See how to fix → Fail
Tool Coverage89
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 61% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 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
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.
- 25 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Schema quality: 297 → 363 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 54% → 61% ▲ functional
- Server version: 3.1.0 → 3.2.0 functional
- “decide_software” added an optional parameter “volumes” cosmetic
- “compare_software” reworded the description of “priorities” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “job” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “priorities” cosmetic
- 22 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “compare_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “decide_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “find_alternatives” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 270 → 297 ▼ functional
- 20 Oct 26 −15
- Stability: pass → fail ▼ security
- A breaking change shipped without a version bump: still 3.1.0 ▼ security
- Tool “check_stack_fit” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “compare_for_use_case” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “compare_tools” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “get_ai_compatibility” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “get_tool” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “recent_changes” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “recommend_tools” was removed ▼ security
- Tool “search_tools” was removed ▼ security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “find_alternatives” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “compare_for_use_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “decide_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 152 → 270 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 40% → 54% ▲ functional
- Server version: 2.0.0 → 3.1.0 functional
- New tool “check_software” functional
- New tool “compare_software” functional
- “compare_for_use_case” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- Tool “decide_software” changed its title: Decide which software fits → Decide which software to buy cosmetic
- Tool “find_alternatives” changed its title: Find better alternatives for a reason → Find alternatives to a product cosmetic
- 19 Oct 26 0
- Tool “decide_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “constraints” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “country” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- 18 Oct 26 +2
- HSTS header: fail → pass ▲ security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “compare_for_use_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “compare_tools” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “compare_for_use_case” reworded the description of “use_case” cosmetic
- “compare_for_use_case” made “use_case” optional cosmetic
- 13 Oct 26 0
- The server changed its declared name: ToolScout: Software Decision Engine → ToolScout security
- Tool “check_stack_fit” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “compare_for_use_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “decide_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “find_alternatives” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “recent_changes” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 114 → 134 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 25% → 38% ▲ functional
- “compare_for_use_case” reworded the description of “existing_tools” cosmetic
- “compare_for_use_case” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “constraints” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “existing_tools” cosmetic
- “decide_software” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” reworded the description of “existing_tools” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” reworded the description of “must_have” cosmetic
- 12 Oct 26 +7
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- 10 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “decide_software” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- “compare_for_use_case” added an optional parameter “country” cosmetic
- “compare_for_use_case” added an optional parameter “seat_count” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” added an optional parameter “country” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” added an optional parameter “seat_count” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” added an optional parameter “team” cosmetic
- “find_alternatives” added an optional parameter “use_case” cosmetic
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://trytoolscout.org/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=trytoolscout.org | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 27 Oct 2026 | 25 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 116eec5e99a3f80d13c3e6516bb4cc29 |
| SANs: trytoolscout.org, *.trytoolscout.org | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of trytoolscout.org. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| org. | present | 725, 26974 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| trytoolscout.org. | 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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000 |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | DENY |
| referrer-policy | strict-origin-when-cross-origin |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://trytoolscout.org/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://trytoolscout.org/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://trytoolscout.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 →
check_software Check facts about named software ~147
Use this when the buyer asks about 1 to 5 named products: plan prices, free plan, AI assistant or MCP support, whether they work with tools already in use, or what changed recently, e.g. 'Does Pipedrive work with Gmail?'. Do not use for setup, troubleshooting or choosing between products.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | string | – | Use free when only Free-plan integrations count. |
| existing_tools | array | – | Software the buyer already uses, to check named integrations; for example Gmail and Notion. |
| seat_count | integer | – | Paid seats, to show team price subtotals. |
| tools | array | yes | Product names or ToolScout slugs. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| affiliate_disclosure | string | yes | – |
| changes | array | yes | – |
| missing | array | yes | – |
| tools | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
compare_software Compare named software for a use case ~307
Use this when comparing 2 to 4 named products for the buyer's situation, e.g. 'HubSpot or Pipedrive for 5 people using Gmail?'. Returns fit, prices, plan limits and trade-offs. Pass only must-haves the buyer stated. End your answer with the ToolScout links it returns. Do not use for unnamed products; use decide_software.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | string | – | – |
| country | string | – | ISO country for manufacturer-documented country-specific price comparison. |
| existing_tools | array | – | Named software already used by the buyer; for example Gmail and Notion. Do not infer unnamed tools. |
| must_have | array | – | Buyer-stated required capabilities, not preferences; for example automated email follow-ups. Forward the same must_have from an earlier decide_software call; otherwise editorial scores are not compar… |
| priorities | array | – | Only priorities the buyer explicitly stated (for example "cheap" or "easy to use"). Never add priorities on the buyer's behalf: each one changes the ranking. Leave empty when the buyer stated none. |
| require_stack_fit | boolean | – | Require evidence for every named existing-stack integration to award a winner. |
| seat_count | integer | – | Exact billed seat count for labelled before-tax per-seat subscription subtotals. |
| team | string | – | – |
| tools | array | yes | – |
| use_case | string | – | Optional buyer workflow; omit for a general product-versus-product comparison. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| affiliate_disclosure | string | yes | – |
| cheaper_option_analysis | object | – | – |
| tools | array | yes | – |
| tradeoffs | array | yes | – |
| use_case | string | yes | – |
| verdict | object | yes | – |
No examples provided.
decide_software Decide which software to buy ~494
Use this when the user asks which software to choose or buy for a job, budget, team size or existing tools, e.g. 'a CRM for 5 people under 50 euros a month'. Returns picks with reasons, prices and trade-offs. End your answer with the ToolScout links it returns. Do not use for coding help, account actions or purchases.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| avoid | array | – | – |
| budget | string | – | – |
| constraints | array | – | Only buyer-stated constraints in their own words, including exact budget and billing period when supplied. Do not invent mandatory local prices or integrations. |
| country | string | – | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country for regional context and price checking. Do not infer local pricing or exclude otherwise relevant software solely for missing regional evidence when no regional price const… |
| existing_tools | array | – | Named software already used by the buyer; for example Gmail and Notion. Do not infer unnamed tools. |
| job | string | yes | The concrete job, workflow or outcome the software must support, written in English: translate the buyer's words faithfully whatever language they used, and answer the buyer in their own language. Ke… |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| must_have | array | – | Only capabilities explicitly required as mandatory by the buyer, not desirable features or assumed sector functions. In English. Team size goes in seat_count and quantities in volumes, unless the buy… |
| priorities | array | – | Only priorities the buyer explicitly stated (for example "cheap" or "easy to use"). Never add priorities on the buyer's behalf: each one changes the ranking. Leave empty when the buyer stated none. |
| require_stack_fit | boolean | – | When true, every existing tool must have a documented, plan-compatible named integration; otherwise fail closed. |
| seat_count | integer | – | Exact paid seat count used only for explicitly labelled before-tax subscription subtotals. |
| team | string | – | – |
| volumes | array | – | Quantities the buyer mentioned, in English, e.g. "1500 marketing contacts", "20000 stored contacts", "10000 emails per month". They choose the plan and price that hold them; they never exclude a prod… |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| affiliate_disclosure | string | yes | – |
| candidate_leads | array | – | – |
| decision_basis | object | yes | – |
| decision_status | string | – | – |
| job | string | yes | – |
| shortlist | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
find_alternatives Find alternatives to a product ~207
Use this when the buyer wants to leave a named product for a reason (price, complexity, a missing feature), e.g. 'HubSpot is too expensive for our team'. Shows prices and trade-offs without claiming unproven savings. End your answer with the ToolScout links it returns. Do not use for a first purchase; use decide_software.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | string | – | – |
| country | string | – | – |
| dislike | string | yes | – |
| existing_tools | array | – | Named software already used by the buyer; for example Gmail and Notion. Do not infer unnamed tools. |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| must_have | array | – | Required capabilities, not preferences; for example automated email follow-ups. |
| require_stack_fit | boolean | – | Exclude alternatives without evidence for each required stack integration. |
| seat_count | integer | – | – |
| team | string | – | – |
| tool | string | yes | – |
| use_case | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| affiliate_disclosure | string | yes | – |
| alternatives | array | yes | – |
| reason | string | yes | – |
| source | object | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server?
ToolScout Software Recommendation is a hosted endpoint at https://trytoolscout.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 · trytoolscout.org
claude mcp add --transport http pcaiano-toolscout 'https://trytoolscout.org/mcp'
What is the ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server?
ToolScout Software Recommendation is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pcaiano/toolscout. Which software to buy: shortlists, comparisons and alternatives with reasons and recorded prices. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://trytoolscout.org/mcp).
Is the ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server safe to use?
ToolScout Software Recommendation scores 69 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 ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server expose?
ToolScout Software Recommendation exposes 4 tools: decide_software, compare_software, find_alternatives, check_software. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,155 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to ToolScout Software Recommendation without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the ToolScout Software Recommendation MCP server still maintained?
ToolScout Software Recommendation 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.