Take The Meeting
REMOTE · GATEWAY.PIPEWORX.IO
take-the-meeting MCP — wraps StupidAPIs (keyless — no credential needed)
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 4% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Communication
Recent critical change
Authorization (11 Sept 2026). See the changelog before you install this server.
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 Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 404, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but the endpoint returned HTTP 400. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (4)
- TLS certificate
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
Checks we could not complete (7)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this hosted endpoint. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Authorization in Endpoint SecurityAuthorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it.
- HTTPS in Endpoint SecurityHTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 404, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement.
- Schema quality in Schema Quality & AI Usability (scores 0 for this)Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.
- Stability in Stability & Change Management (scores 0 for this)Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).
- Tool coverage in Tool Coverage (scores 0 for this)Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.
- Tool safety in Tool Safety (scores 0 for this)Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.
- Capabilities in Capabilities (scores 0 for this)Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
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.
- 28 Oct 26 −63
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- HTTPS: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: 0.60 → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Capabilities: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 27 Oct 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx_beta” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx_grounded” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “deep_research” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 26 Oct 26 +51
- Authorization: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx_beta” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “ask_pipeworx_grounded” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “company_facts” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “deep_research” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “entity_profile” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “polymarket_fill_risk” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “resolution_audit” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “resolution_diff” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “subscribe” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 177 → 508 ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 3% → 9% ▲ functional
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Schema quality: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.57 ▲ functional
- Tool “polymarket_fill_risk” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
- Tool “resolve_entity” now declares an output schema ▲ functional
- Schema quality: good → excellent functional
- New tool “company_register_search” functional
- New tool “prediction_calibration” functional
- “ask_pipeworx” added an optional parameter “packs” cosmetic
- “ask_pipeworx_beta” added an optional parameter “packs” cosmetic
- “ask_pipeworx_grounded” added an optional parameter “prefer_tool” cosmetic
- “entity_profile” added an optional parameter “country” cosmetic
- “resolve_entity” added an optional parameter “country” cosmetic
- “company_facts” reworded the description of “attribute” cosmetic
- “entity_profile” reworded the description of “value” cosmetic
- “resolution_audit” reworded the description of “market” cosmetic
- “resolution_audit” reworded the description of “venue” cosmetic
- “subscribe” reworded the description of “params” cosmetic
- 25 Oct 26 0
- This server's schema is too large to store in full, so we cannot compare its tools day to day functional
- 24 Oct 26 0
- This server's schema is too large to store in full, so we cannot compare its tools day to day functional
- 23 Oct 26 0
- This server's schema is too large to store in full, so we cannot compare its tools day to day functional
- 22 Oct 26 0
- This server's schema is too large to store in full, so we cannot compare its tools day to day functional
- 21 Oct 26 0
- This server's schema is too large to store in full, so we cannot compare its tools day to day functional
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://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=pipeworx.io | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 19 Sept 2026 | 18 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 907077ac952af983139424aa9b807ef7 |
| SANs: pipeworx.io, gateway.pipeworx.io, *.gateway.pipeworx.io | ||||||
| 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 gateway.pipeworx.io. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| pipeworx.io. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 400 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/mcp | HTTP error | 400 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/mcp | Inconclusive | 404 |
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 →
suggest_questions What Can I Ask Pipeworx? ~240
What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass `topic` (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | string | – | Optional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread. |
No output schema declared.
{"topic":"finance"}take_the_meeting_evaluate Take The Meeting Evaluate ~115
Evaluate whether a meeting is worth attending based on its parameters. Heavily weighted toward no. Returns time cost analysis, productivity impact, email viability score, and a polite decline template.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| attendee_count | number | – | Number of attendees |
| could_be_email | boolean | – | Whether this meeting could be an email |
| duration | number | – | Meeting duration in minutes |
| has_agenda | boolean | – | Whether the meeting has an agenda |
| recurring | boolean | – | Whether this is a recurring meeting |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | string | – | – |
| email_viability_score | string | – | Score indicating how suitable this would be as an email (0-100) |
| productivity_coffins | string | – | – |
| suggested_response | string | – | – |
| time_cost | string | – | – |
{"attendee_count":12,"could_be_email":true,"duration":60,"has_agenda":false,"recurring":true}{"attendee_count":3,"could_be_email":false,"duration":30,"has_agenda":true,"recurring":false}unsubscribe Unsubscribe from Alerts ~60
Cancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | string | yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
validate_claim Validate Claim ~370
"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | string | yes | Natural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year". |
| tolerance_pct | number | – | Max percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted.… |
No output schema declared.
{"claim":"Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue was $383 billion"}How do I install the Take The Meeting MCP server?
Take The Meeting is a hosted endpoint at https://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/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 · gateway.pipeworx.io
claude mcp add --transport http pipeworx-io-take-the-meeting 'https://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/mcp'
What is the Take The Meeting MCP server?
Take The Meeting is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pipeworx-io/take-the-meeting. take-the-meeting MCP, wraps StupidAPIs (keyless, no credential needed). This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://gateway.pipeworx.io/take-the-meeting/mcp).
Is the Take The Meeting MCP server safe to use?
Take The Meeting scores 18 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 Take The Meeting MCP server expose?
Take The Meeting exposes 43 tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, search_within, deep_research, and 38 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 21,633 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Take The Meeting MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for Take The Meeting. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the Take The Meeting MCP server still maintained?
Take The Meeting 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 did VerifyMCP test on the Take The Meeting MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 4 checks on Take The Meeting, covering TLS certificate, HSTS header, DNSSEC and Transport. 7 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Take The Meeting: Authorization, HTTPS, Schema quality, Stability and 3 more. 5 categories score 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.