Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence
PYPI · ZETESIS · 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 66% of PyPI servers
Category Health and Science
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
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 1 of 33 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency48
- 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
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 19 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability74
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 519 tokens (~129/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 Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
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 4 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.
- 6 Nov 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 5 Nov 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 29 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 17 Oct 26 +29
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- First check of Judged manipulation: pass security
- Stability: Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window). security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 0 functional
- First check of Schema quality: fail functional
- First check of Destructive annotations: pass functional
- First check of Schema quality: good functional
- First check of Schema quality: fail functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 100 functional
- Package version: 0.1.1 → 0.2.0 functional
- 14 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 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
- 25 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
- 18 Sept 26 0
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
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 · Analysed pypi/zetesis@0.2.0
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 | Known build tool | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 33 packages
| Packages resolved | 33 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 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 →
account_status ~23
Show the caller's Zetesis plan and remaining free evaluations or dossier credits.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
check_evaluation ~63
Get the result of a full (deep) Zetesis dossier started earlier. Returns the reading and the rendered dossier link once it is ready. Args: job_id: the id returned by evaluate_claim for a deep evaluation.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | string | yes | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
evaluate_claim ~345
Evaluate how rigorously a scientific, biomedical, clinical, or AI/ML claim was derived, and how well the evidence supports it. Use this whenever someone wants to assess, screen, sanity-check, or do due diligence on a research claim, a study, a paper, an abstract, a preprint, a grant or a pitch: whether the methodology is sound, whether the data was harmonized and controlled properly, whether the statistics hold, whether the result reproduces, and how well the public literature, clinical trials, and filings back it. It grades each evidence dimension and returns an overall reading with sources cited by hard id (PMID, DOI, NCT, NIH grant, SEC filing). Works for drug, omics, target-validation, diagnostic, and AI-model claims. A screen is free and needs no token. A full attested dossier (deep) is the signed, independently re-checkable audit and needs access. 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). depth: "screen" for a fast, free pass (no token needed), "deep" for the full attested dossier (needs access). mode: "research" (science only) or "diligence" (adds the capital reading); deep only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | string | yes | – |
| context | string | – | – |
| depth | string | – | – |
| documents | string | – | – |
| mode | string | – | – |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
verify_attestation ~88
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. No account needed. Args: attestation_json: the full attestation object as JSON text.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| attestation_json | string | yes | – |
| 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 runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx zetesis. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · zetesis
claude mcp add reutavidan-zetesis -- uvx zetesis
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 PyPI package (zetesis).
Is the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server safe to use?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence scores 69 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 6 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.
What tools does the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server expose?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence exposes 4 tools: evaluate_claim, check_evaluation, verify_attestation, account_status. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 519 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
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 licence is the Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server under?
Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence 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 Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 15 checks on Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence, 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 Zetesis Scientific Due Diligence: 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 a PyPI package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.