Texas Ag Opinions
NPM · @PIPEWORX/MCP-TEXAS-AG-OPINIONS · 2 COMPONENTS
Texas Attorney General opinions — statute-citation search over recorded subsequent treatment…
Available components
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 65% of npm servers
Category Education and Research
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-texas-ag-opinions). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 6 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability70
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 535 tokens (~178/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 0
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 2 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 1 Nov 26 0
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 30 Oct 26 0
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 29 Oct 26 80
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-texas-ag-opinions@0.2.0
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-texas-ag-opinions |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/pipeworx-io/mcp-texas-ag-opinions/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3560419230 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:f1bd7a0c1774bb82120e5a6b7d0a09e3ccf931c3f37e373a0c98b40bee26fc4e0acc28e6cccf6e28b3506259a420c34190189ce445d197a2039a4e0f9 |
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 →
tx_ag_opinion_lookup ~144
Look up a Texas Attorney General opinion by its number (e.g. "KP-0537", "GA-0153") -- returns the AG, date, requestor, RQ- request number, topic categories, one-sentence summary, full opinion text, statute citations found in it (best-effort), and whether it has a recorded overruled/modified/affirmed/withdrawn status. Sourced live from texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| opinion_number | string | yes | Opinion number, e.g. "KP-0537", "GA-0153", "DM-212". Case- and spacing-insensitive. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
tx_ag_opinion_status ~122
Check whether a specific Texas AG opinion has a recorded overruled, modified, affirmed, superseded, or withdrawn status in the AG's own courtesy index. A 'not_listed' result does NOT mean the opinion is still good law -- the AG's index itself says it may be incomplete. Sourced from texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions-overruled-modified-affirmed-withdrawn.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| opinion_number | string | yes | Opinion number, e.g. "KP-0326", "GA-0999". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
tx_ag_statute_search ~209
Find Texas AG opinions interpreting a given statute (e.g. "552.101" (Public Information Act), "551" (Open Meetings Act)) or citing it as a keyword. For Chapter 552/551 citations this returns real opinions (number, date, one-line summary) live from the AG's own topic-category index; other chapters fall back to opinions the AG's RECORDED overruled/modified/affirmed/withdrawn index cites this statute in. PARTIAL CAPABILITY: this is not a full-text search of the whole ~19,000-opinion archive, which needs an authentication this pack does not have -- see the response's coverage_note for exactly what was searched. For a specific opinion's full text, use tx_ag_opinion_lookup.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | string | yes | A statute citation or keyword to search for, e.g. "552.101" or "Tex. Gov't Code 2054.5191" or "Open Meetings". |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Texas Ag Opinions MCP server?
Texas Ag Opinions runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-texas-ag-opinions. 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-texas-ag-opinions
claude mcp add pipeworx-io-texas-ag-opinions -- npx -y @pipeworx/mcp-texas-ag-opinions
What is the Texas Ag Opinions MCP server?
Texas Ag Opinions is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.pipeworx-io/texas-ag-opinions. Texas Attorney General opinions, statute-citation search over recorded subsequent treatment… This page covers its npm package (@pipeworx/mcp-texas-ag-opinions).
Is the Texas Ag Opinions MCP server safe to use?
Texas Ag Opinions scores 80 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 Texas Ag Opinions MCP server expose?
Texas Ag Opinions exposes 3 tools: tx_ag_opinion_lookup, tx_ag_opinion_status, tx_ag_statute_search. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 475 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Texas Ag Opinions MCP server still maintained?
Texas Ag Opinions 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 Texas Ag Opinions MCP server under?
Texas Ag Opinions 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 Texas Ag Opinions MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 15 checks on Texas Ag Opinions, 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 Texas Ag Opinions: 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.