RouteVerdict
PYPI · ROUTE-VERDICT-MCP
MCP server for RouteVerdict — x402 endpoint trust checks ($0.05 USDC on Base)
Available components
Last scanned (18 hours ago)
Scores higher than 65% of PyPI servers
Category Security
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 Security50
- Malware scan not yet available for this package.Unverified
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 0 of 46 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Pass
Provenance & Transparency97
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to QuincyGB/route-verdict-mcp). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 5 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 151 tokens (~151/item across 1 items; 1 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management40
- Stability observed for 12 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 1 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
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 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 3 Nov 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 31 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.
- 30 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 29 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 28 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +46
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.10 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ 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 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/route-verdict-mcp@0.1.2
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 | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | QuincyGB/route-verdict-mcp |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/QuincyGB/route-verdict-mcp/.github/workflows/publish.yml@refs/heads/main |
| Rekor log index | 3469414806 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:327cd03a8b01a2f4a8609a91db7140f31dc16bd53c08956cba0637121a4155ac |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 46 packages
| Packages resolved | 46 |
|---|---|
| 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 →
route_check ~151
Audit an x402 endpoint's trust and liveness before paying or relying on it. Calls RouteVerdict (POST /v1/check, $0.05 USDC on Base via x402). Returns a verdict (TRUSTED / CAUTION / AVOID) with a 0-100 trust score, an itemized deduction list, a live 402 probe of the target (the target is never paid), its published terms, discovery-schema quality, catalog presence in the CDP Bazaar and PayAI indexes, and a diff against the last check of the same URL. Args: resource_url: Full URL of the x402 resource to audit.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_url | string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the RouteVerdict MCP server?
RouteVerdict runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx route-verdict-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · route-verdict-mcp
claude mcp add quincygb-route-verdict-mcp -- uvx route-verdict-mcp
What is the RouteVerdict MCP server?
RouteVerdict is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.QuincyGB/route-verdict-mcp. MCP server for RouteVerdict, x402 endpoint trust checks ($0.05 USDC on Base). This page covers its PyPI package (route-verdict-mcp).
Is the RouteVerdict MCP server safe to use?
RouteVerdict scores 69 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 4 November 2026. 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 RouteVerdict MCP server expose?
RouteVerdict exposes 1 tool: route_check. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 151 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the RouteVerdict MCP server still maintained?
RouteVerdict is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 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 RouteVerdict MCP server under?
RouteVerdict declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.