Peppol
NPM · @PIPEWORX/MCP-PEPPOL · 2 COMPONENTS
Peppol participant lookup (SML + SMP + Peppol Directory).
Available components
Last scanned (5 hours ago)
Scores higher than 62% 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-peppol). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 1 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability63
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 776 tokens (~258/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 Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
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
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (15)
- Malware scan
- Known CVEs
- Install scripts
- Dependency health
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (1)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).
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 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 4 Nov 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-peppol@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-peppol |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/pipeworx-io/mcp-peppol/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3685278699 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:fdde08f07e7e2643cf841599ff24c809c7847d4c52d149842e31b9b7f8e6c286800cbce0d903b082eb84d787be20f04d57350f2bd55a003b1b5c6a87f |
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 →
get_participant_endpoint ~254
Get the AS4 delivery details a sender needs for one specific document type: transport profile, receiving endpoint URL, process identifier, and the service activation/expiration window. Call lookup_participant first to get the exact documentTypeId to pass here. An expired ServiceExpirationDate means the participant is listed but that document type is no longer deliverable.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentTypeId | string | yes | Full document type identifier value exactly as lookup_participant returned it in documentTypes[].value, e.g. "urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2::Invoice##urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017#… |
| documentTypeScheme | string | – | Document type scheme, default "busdox-docid-qns". |
| environment | string | – | "production" (default) or "test". |
| participantId | string | yes | Peppol participant identifier, e.g. "0192:989995278". |
| scheme | string | – | Participant identifier scheme, default "iso6523-actorid-upis". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
lookup_participant ~281
Check whether a company is registered on the Peppol e-invoicing network and list every document type it accepts. Resolves the participant identifier through the Peppol SML (DNS/BDXL) to its SMP, then reads the SMP ServiceGroup — the authoritative registration check, keyless, no Peppol membership needed. Returns registered=false with the reason when the identifier has no SML record. Use search_participants first if you have a company name rather than an identifier.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | string | – | "production" (default) queries the live Peppol network. "test" queries the pilot SML (acc.edelivery.tech.ec.europa.eu). |
| participantId | string | yes | Peppol participant identifier as "{schemeCode}:{value}", e.g. "0208:1021916675" (Belgian company number), "0192:989995278" (Norwegian org number), "0088:7300010000001" (GLN). The leading 4-digit sche… |
| scheme | string | – | Identifier scheme. Effectively always the default "iso6523-actorid-upis"; only override for a non-standard network. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_participants ~187
Search the Peppol Directory (directory.peppol.eu, OpenPEPPOL's opt-in business-card index) by company name, VAT/organisation number or country to find a participant identifier. Use this to turn a company name into the "{schemeCode}:{value}" identifier that lookup_participant needs. Registration on the network does not require publishing a business card, so absence here is not proof a company is not on Peppol — confirm with lookup_participant.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | string | – | Optional 2-letter ISO country code filter, e.g. "NO", "BE", "DE". |
| limit | number | – | Max matches to return, 1-100. Default 10. |
| q | string | yes | Free-text query: company name, VAT number, or organisation number, e.g. "Atelier OSLO" or "1021916675". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Peppol MCP server?
Peppol runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-peppol. 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-peppol
claude mcp add pipeworx-io-peppol -- npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-peppol
What is the Peppol MCP server?
Peppol is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pipeworx-io/peppol. Peppol participant lookup (SML + SMP + Peppol Directory). This page covers its npm package (@pipeworx/mcp-peppol).
Is the Peppol MCP server safe to use?
Peppol scores 79 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 Peppol MCP server expose?
Peppol exposes 3 tools: lookup_participant, get_participant_endpoint, search_participants. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 722 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Peppol MCP server still maintained?
Peppol 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 Peppol MCP server under?
Peppol 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 Peppol MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 15 checks on Peppol, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 11 more. One item could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Peppol: Stability. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. 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.