LookupLab
REMOTE · LOOKUPLAB.IO
Phone carrier, email domain, IP network and DNS checks using your LookupLab account.
Available components
Last scanned (15 hours ago)
Scores higher than 84% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
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 Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- 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 & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability71
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 374 tokens (~93/item across 4 items; 4 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management80
- Stability observed for 24 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage95
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 86% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
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
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
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.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
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://lookuplab.io/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=lookuplab.io | CN=WR3,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 27 Oct 2026 | 25 Jan 2027 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 2959aa2d456cd4ba094e1b9a8b1da6b6 |
| SANs: lookuplab.io | ||||||
| CN=WR3,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 7ff005a91568d63abc22861684aa4b5a |
| CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 19 Jun 2020 | 28 Jan 2028 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | 77bd0d6cdb36f91aea210fc4f058d30d |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of lookuplab.io. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| lookuplab.io. | No DS | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://lookuplab.io/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://lookuplab.io/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 302 | https://lookuplab.io/api/mcp |
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 →
dns_check Inspect email DNS records ~85
Inspect a user-provided domain's MX, SPF, DMARC or DKIM record and report issues. Does not change DNS. DKIM requires a selector. Uses 1 existing account credit for a successful check.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | string | yes | – |
| domain | string | yes | Domain to check. |
| selector | string | – | DKIM selector; required when check is dkim. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
email_verify Check email syntax and domain ~65
Check an email address supplied by the user for syntax, MX records, disposable-domain and role-address indicators. Does not prove mailbox ownership or guarantee delivery. Uses 1 existing account credit for a successful check; does not send email.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| string | yes | Email address to check. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
ip_lookup Check IP location and network ~67
Look up approximate IP location and network/provider indicators for an IP address supplied by the user. IP location is not a person's precise location or identity; privacy flags may be unavailable. Uses 1 existing account credit for a successful check.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | string | yes | IPv4 or IPv6 address. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
phone_lookup Check phone carrier and line type ~118
Check a user-provided phone number for carrier and line type. Optional US/CA caller-name data is a carrier listing, not identity verification. Uses existing account credits: 1 for landline/VoIP/toll-free, 3 for mobile or unknown; caller name adds 2. Reserves up to 5 credits before execution. Does not place calls or send messages.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller_name | boolean | – | Request caller-name data; adds 2 credits. |
| number | string | yes | Phone number, preferably E.164 international format. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the LookupLab MCP server?
LookupLab is a hosted endpoint at https://lookuplab.io/api/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 · lookuplab.io
claude mcp add --transport http ppineapple-lookuplab 'https://lookuplab.io/api/mcp'
What is the LookupLab MCP server?
LookupLab is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.PpiNeaPpLe/lookuplab. Phone carrier, email domain, IP network and DNS checks using your LookupLab account. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://lookuplab.io/api/mcp).
Is the LookupLab MCP server safe to use?
LookupLab scores 81 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 LookupLab MCP server expose?
LookupLab exposes 4 tools: phone_lookup, email_verify, ip_lookup, dns_check. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 335 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the LookupLab MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to LookupLab without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the LookupLab MCP server still maintained?
LookupLab 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 LookupLab MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on LookupLab, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. 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.