Algorithm Finder
NPM · @PIPEWORX/MCP-ALGORITHM-FINDER · 2 COMPONENTS
Algorithm Finder MCP — which algorithm, data structure or technique fits a computational problem…
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 69% of npm servers
Category Developer Tools
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 Security100
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- No production dependencies, so there is no dependency health to assess. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to pipeworx-io/mcp-algorithm-finder). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 5 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability58
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1135 tokens (~283/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 Management23
- Stability observed for 7 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 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 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.
- 4 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.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 1 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 31 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.
- 30 Oct 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.2.0 → 0.2.1 functional
- 29 Oct 26 78
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 · Analysed npm/@pipeworx/mcp-algorithm-finder@0.2.1
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | pipeworx-io/mcp-algorithm-finder |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/pipeworx-io/mcp-algorithm-finder/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3587909506 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:647229a72d64a5bf89e64e2c711aec3b6e2ea962a758c1cece968795f00716b4ea1ea54ff8a5f8a1b33fe2ad86a6f73f38f3287c44d3251497f9fc360 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Dependencies 0 packages
| Packages resolved | 0 |
|---|---|
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
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 →
algorithm_compare ~466
Compare candidate algorithms against the facts of YOUR instance and get a verdict. Pass method names (e.g. ["dijkstra","bellman-ford"]) or a problem description, plus constraints such as {"negative_weights": true, "query": "single_source"}, {"stable": true, "key_type": "integer_small_range"}, {"exact": false, "dimensions": "high"}, {"false_positives_ok": true, "dynamic": "fully_dynamic"}. Each candidate gets satisfied / violated / unknown per constraint, read from a curated table cited to textbooks, papers and library docs; unknown means the table records nothing and is never guessed. Returns the winner (or "conditional" with the unknowns named, or "none_compatible"), each candidate's bounds and when-not advice, and the decisive questions you have not answered that would change the choice.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| constraints | object | – | Facts about your instance. Keys: negative_weights, negative_cycles, weighted, directed, acyclic, bipartite (booleans); graph_density sparse|dense; query single_pair|single_source|all_pairs; exact, wo… |
| names | array | – | Method names or aliases to compare (2-10), e.g. ["dijkstra", "bellman-ford", "johnson"]. |
| problem | string | – | Instead of names: a problem description; the top curated candidates for it are compared. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
algorithm_find ~304
Which algorithm, data structure or technique fits a computational problem. Describe the problem in words ("shortest route between two points with positive costs", "assign workers to jobs minimising cost", "find near-duplicate records", "schedule jobs to minimise lateness") and get the standard textbook methods (preconditions, worst-case / expected / amortized bounds, when to use and when not, alternatives, each fact cited to CLRS and other textbooks and to the NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures), the open questions whose answers decide between them, Skiena Algorithm Repository problem pages, and recent research papers with dates from Hugging Face Papers and arXiv. want=common for textbook only, novel for recent papers only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| constraints | object | – | Optional facts about your instance (same keys as algorithm_compare, e.g. {"negative_weights": true}); textbook results that violate one move to the end and each result carries a per-constraint fit. |
| limit | number | – | Max results per leg (1-25, default 8). |
| problem | string | yes | The computational problem in plain words, e.g. "all-pairs shortest paths", "approximate nearest neighbor search in high dimensions", "longest common subsequence of two strings". |
| since_year | number | – | Earliest publication year for novel results (default: five years ago). |
| want | string | – | common = textbook methods; novel = recent research papers; both (default). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
algorithm_implementations ~156
Implementations of a named algorithm: the languages Rosetta Code has solutions in and, with language set, the source code of that solution (CC BY-SA 4.0, labelled educational), plus reference implementation links from the NIST DADS entry, the cp-algorithms article, and the Skiena Algorithm Repository implementation links for the problem.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | string | – | Programming language as Rosetta Code names it, e.g. "Python", "C++", "Go", "Rust", "Java". Omit to list the languages available. |
| name | string | yes | Algorithm name, e.g. "Dijkstra's algorithm", "Floyd-Warshall algorithm", "Knuth-Morris-Pratt". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
algorithm_lookup ~153
One named algorithm, data structure or technique in full: what it solves, preconditions, complexity bounds with their kind (worst-case / expected / amortized) and textbook citations, when to use it and what to use instead, the NIST DADS dictionary entry (definition, relations, implementation links), the cp-algorithms article, Skiena Algorithm Repository problem pages, and which languages Rosetta Code has solutions in. Accepts short names ("Dijkstra", "KMP", "union-find") and aliases.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | string | yes | Method name or alias, e.g. "Dijkstra", "Floyd-Warshall", "red-black tree", "Hopcroft-Karp", "LRU". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Algorithm Finder MCP server?
Algorithm Finder runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-algorithm-finder. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @pipeworx/mcp-algorithm-finder
claude mcp add pipeworx-io-algorithm-finder -- npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-algorithm-finder
What is the Algorithm Finder MCP server?
Algorithm Finder is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pipeworx-io/algorithm-finder. Algorithm Finder MCP, which algorithm, data structure or technique fits a computational problem… This page covers its npm package (@pipeworx/mcp-algorithm-finder).
Is the Algorithm Finder MCP server safe to use?
Algorithm Finder scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. Its build provenance is signed and verified. 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 Algorithm Finder MCP server expose?
Algorithm Finder exposes 4 tools: algorithm_find, algorithm_compare, algorithm_lookup, algorithm_implementations. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,079 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Algorithm Finder MCP server still maintained?
Algorithm Finder 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 licence is the Algorithm Finder MCP server under?
Algorithm Finder declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.