Literature Review Council
PYPI · LIT-REVIEW-COUNCIL
Multi-agent literature review: research, peer review, and synthesize grounded reports.
Available components
Last scanned (1 day ago)
Scores higher than 25% of PyPI 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 Security95
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known medium-severity CVE affects opentelemetry-api 1.44.0, reached via google-adk > opentelemetry-api. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 3 of 64 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency32
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Provenance check failed: no build-provenance attestation is published. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- License check failed: no license is declared. See how to fix → Fail
- Actively maintained (last published 134 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema quality not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to assess.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no schema to compare.Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool definitions to assess.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we have no tool text to scan.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Protocol version not yet verified: this server's registry entry declares environment variables (an API key or similar), and its server did not start in our sandbox, so we never saw its MCP handshake.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because our sandbox has not given us the schema these checks need to read. That is a gap on our side rather than a finding about the package, and we only credit what we can confirm, so the score stands at 0 until the capture succeeds. We are working through the fleet, so this normally clears without any action from you. How we score packages →
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: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Security disclosure: unverified → fail ▼ functional
- 3 Nov 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Security disclosure: fail → unverified ▼ functional
- 30 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 29 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 25 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 24 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 23 Oct 26 +14
- CVE-2026-114603 affects this package: medium ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 13 Oct 26 +11
- Known CVEs: unverified → pass ▲ security
- Dependency health: unverified → 0.99 ▲ 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/lit-review-council@0.1.4
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | No attestation published |
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 →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xcq7-p3pf-p88h | CVE-2026-114603 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 64 packages
| Packages resolved | 64 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 2 |
| No linked repository | 1 |
| 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 →
Tools for package channels are captured by running the package in an isolated sandbox. The most recent sandbox run could not capture a tool list from this package.
How do I install the Literature Review Council MCP server?
Literature Review Council runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx lit-review-council. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · lit-review-council
claude mcp add ravicha2-lit-review-council -- uvx lit-review-council
What is the Literature Review Council MCP server?
Literature Review Council is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Ravicha2/lit-review-council. Multi-agent literature review: research, peer review, and synthesize grounded reports. This page covers its PyPI package (lit-review-council).
Is the Literature Review Council MCP server safe to use?
Literature Review Council scores 35 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 4 November 2026. 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.
Is the Literature Review Council MCP server still maintained?
Literature Review Council 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.