Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence
REMOTE · API.ZETESIS.SCIENCE · 2 COMPONENTS
Due diligence on life-science claims: omics, trials, gene therapy. Dimension by dimension.
Available components
Last scanned (1 hour ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 6 Nov 2026.
Category Health and Science
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 Usability63
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1846 tokens (~461/item across 4 items; 4 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
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
- 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 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.
- 6 Nov 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 28 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 10 Oct 26 0
- Schema quality: 555 → 461 ▲ functional
- 1 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 29 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: unreachable → reachable ▲ functional
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 27 Sept 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- Stability: 0.83 → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- HSTS header: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified 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 6 Nov 2026 · Probed https://api.zetesis.science/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=api.zetesis.science | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 11 Sept 2026 | 10 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 610a04cc52e663f9fe928a44da2a4f3276c |
| SANs: api.zetesis.science | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of api.zetesis.science. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| science. | DS published | 10030 | 8 | Verified |
| zetesis.science. | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://api.zetesis.science/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://api.zetesis.science/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://api.zetesis.science/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 →
evaluate_claim Evaluate a scientific or AI claim ~409
Run Zetesis's graded reading of a scientific, biomedical, clinical, or AI/ML claim. Grades each evidence dimension and returns an overall reading, with every source cited by hard public id (PMID, DOI, NCT, NIH grant, SEC filing). Covers drug, omics, target-validation, diagnostic, and AI-model claims. Runs the hosted engine end to end and typically takes a couple of minutes, long enough that some clients background or time out the call. The output is Zetesis's own reading as a finished artifact. zetesis_scope and zetesis_evidence return the same dated sources and the same grading rubric immediately and without running a model, at full source depth rather than abstract level. A signed, independently re-checkable dossier is available by request at the Zetesis site. Args: claim: the claim to evaluate, in one or two sentences. context: optional background (stage, field, the decision at hand). documents: optional source text (a deck, abstract, or paper). as_of: year the claim was made. Set it for any claim that is not brand new. It restricts evidence to what existed then, which both keeps later outcomes out of the reading and sharply improves what is retrieved: left open, a pivotal trial report competes with every paper published since and gets buried.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | integer | – | Year the claim was made. Set it for any claim that is not brand new: it restricts evidence to what existed then, which keeps later outcomes out of the reading and sharply improves what is retrieved. |
| claim | string | yes | The claim to evaluate, in one or two sentences. |
| context | string | – | Optional background: stage, field, or the decision at hand. |
| documents | string | – | Optional source text to evaluate against, such as a deck, abstract or paper. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
verify_attestation Verify a Zetesis attestation ~95
Verify a Zetesis attestation, confirming an evaluation's claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since it was signed. Use when someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants to independently re-check it. Args: attestation_json: the full attestation object as JSON text.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation_json | string | yes | The full Zetesis attestation object, as JSON text. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
zetesis_evidence Retrieve dated public evidence for a claim ~500
Step 2 of a Zetesis evaluation. Runs the search queries against public evidence sources (Europe PMC, ClinicalTrials.gov, openFDA, and optionally NIH RePORTER and SEC EDGAR) and returns a deduplicated bundle where every source carries a hard public id, followed by the Zetesis grading rubric so you can grade the dimensions yourself. With as_of set, retrieval is fenced to sources published, registered, or filed on or before 31 December of that year, and two fields that leak later outcomes are suppressed: a trial's present-day status, and FDA labels effective after the cutoff. That makes it possible to judge a claim on what was actually knowable at the time. Runs no model, costs nothing, and returns immediately. Takes the queries worked out when the claim was scoped. Args: queries: 3 to 6 short keyword phrases. Query 1 should be the bare name of the thing claimed about (a drug, compound code, model, or gene); query 2 that name plus at most two outcome words. Longer phrases retrieve commentary rather than the primary report. If the claim names no agent at all (a behaviour, diet, procedure, exposure or policy), anchor on the field's own technical term instead of the lay one ("time restricted eating", not "intermittent fasting"), pair it with the outcome as the field measures it, and allow one design word such as crossover or randomized in one later query. Without an entity name that design word is the only thing separating a trial report from a review of trial reports. as_of: optional cutoff year, as used in zetesis_scope. include_capital: also retrieve funding and public-filing signal.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | integer | – | Year the claim was made. Set it for any claim that is not brand new: it restricts evidence to what existed then, which keeps later outcomes out of the reading and sharply improves what is retrieved. |
| include_capital | boolean | – | Also retrieve funding and public filing signal from NIH RePORTER and SEC EDGAR. |
| queries | array | yes | Three to six short keyword phrases. Query 1 should be the bare name of the thing claimed about; query 2 that name plus at most two outcome words. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
zetesis_scope Scope a claim for evaluation ~420
Scope a scientific, biomedical, clinical, or AI/ML claim for evaluation. Returns three things: the source catalog, meaning where the evidence for this claim class lives; the diligence apparatus for that class, meaning the questions a domain reviewer asks and the failure patterns that have caught comparable claims before; and the scoping rubric used to work out which evidence dimensions bear on this particular claim and what to search for. Applies to a research claim, a study, a paper, an abstract, a preprint, a grant or a pitch, and to checking a paper or statistic before relying on it. Runs no model, costs nothing, and returns immediately. The queries worked out from its output are what zetesis_evidence takes as input. With as_of set, the apparatus and rubric are framed for judging the claim as it stood at the end of that year. Args: claim: the claim to evaluate, in one or two sentences. context: optional background (stage, field, the decision at hand). as_of: optional year. Set it to evaluate the claim as it stood at the end of that year, grading how it was derived at the time rather than how it turned out. claim_class: optional override for the routed claim class. The response lists every class; pass one back if the routing picked wrongly, or if nothing routed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | integer | – | Year the claim was made. Set it for any claim that is not brand new: it restricts evidence to what existed then, which keeps later outcomes out of the reading and sharply improves what is retrieved. |
| claim | string | yes | The claim to evaluate, in one or two sentences. |
| claim_class | string | – | Optional override for the routed claim class. The response lists every class; pass one back if the routing picked wrongly. |
| context | string | – | Optional background: stage, field, or the decision at hand. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence is a hosted endpoint at https://api.zetesis.science/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 · api.zetesis.science
claude mcp add --transport http reutavidan-zetesis 'https://api.zetesis.science/mcp'
What is the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.reutavidan/zetesis. Due diligence on life-science claims: omics, trials, gene therapy. Dimension by dimension. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://api.zetesis.science/mcp).
Is the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server safe to use?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence scores 83 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 Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server expose?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence exposes 4 tools: evaluate_claim, zetesis_scope, zetesis_evidence, verify_attestation. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,424 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server still maintained?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 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 Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence, 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.