Gsa Elibrary
NPM · @PIPEWORX/MCP-GSA-ELIBRARY · 2 COMPONENTS
GSA eLibrary — Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract holders.
Available components
Last scanned (10 hours ago)
Scores higher than 72% of npm 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 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-gsa-elibrary). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 3 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability65
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 564 tokens (~188/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management20
- Stability observed for 6 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 4 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 (16)
- Malware scan
- Known CVEs
- Install scripts
- Dependency health
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this package (2)
- Endpoint SecurityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
- Transport & ReachabilityScored on hosted endpoints only. A package has no live endpoint of its own for us to probe.
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.
- 5 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.
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 2 Nov 26 +2
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.10 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.2.0 → 0.2.1 functional
- 31 Oct 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 30 Oct 26 79
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-gsa-elibrary@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-gsa-elibrary |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/pipeworx-io/mcp-gsa-elibrary/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3637386206 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:847a681b0352aac089d02bc80ab95bc1f238be0eecf9b5074a50e32c28990eaaf26862b8d0f457231d95d7a72dc7229149b17e13390e9af8ef27c6969 |
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 →
gsa_contractor_profile ~233
Look up which GSA Multiple Award Schedule(s)/GWAC(s) a contractor holds and its contract number(s) on each. Pass a known `sin` (and `schedule`) to also pull phone/city/state from that SIN's contract-holder listing. Address, email, website, SAM UEI, NAICS, socio-economic/exclusion-list status, and option-period end date are not available from this tool — eLibrary's per-contract detail page that carries them is blocked from our network; the response names this plainly.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_number | string | – | Optional — narrow to one specific contract number when the contractor holds several |
| contractor_name | string | yes | Contractor/manufacturer name (matched case-insensitively against eLibrary's search results) |
| schedule | string | – | Schedule/GWAC number the `sin` belongs to (default "MAS"); only used when `sin` is given |
| sin | string | – | Optional — a Special Item Number already known to be held by this contractor (e.g. from gsa_schedule_search), used to additionally pull phone/city/state |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
gsa_schedule_contract_holders ~169
List Multiple Award Schedule contract holders for a given SIN (Special Item Number), optionally narrowed by a keyword matched against contractor name, contract number, city, or state. Returns each holder's contract number, phone, and location. Use gsa_schedule_search first to find a valid schedule/SIN pair.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | string | – | Optional filter against contractor name, contract number, city, or state |
| limit | number | – | Max holders to return (default 25, max 100) |
| offset | number | – | Pagination offset (default 0) |
| schedule | string | – | Schedule/GWAC number the SIN belongs to (default "MAS") |
| sin | string | yes | Special Item Number (SIN), e.g. "541511" or "ALL 2" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
gsa_schedule_search ~106
Search GSA eLibrary by keyword, SIN number, NAICS code, or contractor/manufacturer name. Returns matching Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) categories/SINs and contractor matches with contract numbers — the starting point for finding who holds a GSA schedule contract.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | string | yes | Keyword, SIN/category number, NAICS code, contract number, or contractor/manufacturer name |
| search_type | string | – | How to match multi-word keywords (default all_words) |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Gsa Elibrary MCP server?
Gsa Elibrary runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-gsa-elibrary. 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-gsa-elibrary
claude mcp add pipeworx-io-gsa-elibrary -- npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-gsa-elibrary
What is the Gsa Elibrary MCP server?
Gsa Elibrary is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pipeworx-io/gsa-elibrary. GSA eLibrary, Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract holders. This page covers its npm package (@pipeworx/mcp-gsa-elibrary).
Is the Gsa Elibrary MCP server safe to use?
Gsa Elibrary scores 82 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 Gsa Elibrary MCP server expose?
Gsa Elibrary exposes 3 tools: gsa_schedule_search, gsa_schedule_contract_holders, gsa_contractor_profile. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 508 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Gsa Elibrary MCP server still maintained?
Gsa Elibrary 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 Gsa Elibrary MCP server under?
Gsa Elibrary declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.
What did VerifyMCP test on the Gsa Elibrary MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 16 checks on Gsa Elibrary, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 12 more. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an npm package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.