XRPL Token Guard
REMOTE · COCOEATSAI.COM
Read-only XRP Ledger token-risk, issuer-authenticity and wallet-security checks.
Available components
Last scanned (6 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 Usability83
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 513 tokens (~171/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management60
- Stability observed for 18 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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 3 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
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 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.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 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 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 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 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 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 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 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://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=cocoeatsai.com | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 25 Sept 2026 | 24 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5439c4ce19644d67d512d22627b423612e9 |
| SANs: *.cocoeatsai.com, cocoeatsai.com | ||||||
| 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 cocoeatsai.com. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| com. | DS published | 19718 | 13 | Verified |
| cocoeatsai.com. | 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 |
|---|---|
| content-security-policy | default-src 'self'; script-src 'self' 'sha256-0al6utSDjSOqhjNwgYz/jZsUEFM2OsOCbhAW+xFw+eM='; style-src 'self' 'sha256-d51pxBk4Ldu7NcxAp0wwCkuqRzTTk+FgR1nyqDdyXaA='; connect-src 'self'; img-src 'self' data:; object-src 'none'; frame-ancestors 'none'; base-uri 'self'; form-action 'self'; upgrade-insecure-requests |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| referrer-policy | no-referrer |
| permissions-policy | camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=() |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/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 →
check_token_safety Check an XRPL token's safety ~160
Live safety check of an XRP Ledger token (issued currency). Detects fake look-alikes of famous tokens (e.g. a fake RLUSD), issuers that can still mint, freeze or claw back, global freezes, transfer fees, unverified domains, whale concentration, thin AMM liquidity and brand-new issuers. Returns a verdict (High risk / Caution / No red flags found / Not enough data), the reasons behind it with the exact ledger facts, and a one-sentence spoken summary.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | string | yes | Token ticker as shown in wallets (e.g. RLUSD, SOLO) or its 40-character hex currency code. |
| issuer | string | yes | The token issuer's XRPL address (starts with r). |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| checked_at | string | yes | – |
| disclaimer | string | yes | – |
| facts | object | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| ledger_index | number|null | yes | – |
| more_info_url | string|null | yes | – |
| reasons | array | yes | The top reasons behind the verdict, most important first. |
| score | number | yes | 0-100 mechanical score; not a safety probability. Clawback is a high-risk control-policy failure. |
| spoken_summary | string | yes | One or two sentences ready for text-to-speech. |
| token | object | yes | – |
| verdict | string | yes | – |
| verdict_label | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
check_wallet_security Check an XRPL wallet for takeover signs ~72
Checks whether anyone besides the owner can sign for an XRPL wallet: an unexpected regular key or multisig signer list (the classic drainer setup), and flags changes made in the last 7 days as urgent. Read-only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | The wallet's XRPL address (starts with r). |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | – |
| checked_at | string | yes | – |
| disclaimer | string | yes | – |
| facts | object | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| spoken_summary | string | yes | – |
| verdict | string | yes | – |
| verdict_label | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
is_it_the_real_token Is this the real token? ~176
Answers "is this the real RLUSD / USDC / SOLO?" using the verified official issuers (RLUSD: rMxCKbEDwqr76QuheSUMdEGf4B9xJ8m5De; USDC: rGm7WCVp9gb4jZHWTEtGUr4dd74z2XuWhE; SOLO: rsoLo2S1kiGeCcn6hCUXVrCpGMWLrRrLZz). Give the ticker alone to learn the official issuer, or ticker + issuer to confirm or expose an imitation. Instant, no ledger call.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| issuer | string | – | Optional issuer address to verify. |
| ticker | string | yes | The token name or ticker the user mentioned, e.g. RLUSD. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_official | boolean|null | yes | – |
| known_brand | boolean | yes | – |
| message | string | yes | – |
| official | – | yes | – |
| spoken_summary | string | yes | – |
| ticker | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the XRPL Token Guard MCP server?
XRPL Token Guard is a hosted endpoint at https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/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 · cocoeatsai.com
claude mcp add --transport http riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard 'https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp'
What is the XRPL Token Guard MCP server?
XRPL Token Guard is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Riehnbean/xrpl-token-guard. Read-only XRP Ledger token-risk, issuer-authenticity and wallet-security checks. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp).
Is the XRPL Token Guard MCP server safe to use?
XRPL Token Guard 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 XRPL Token Guard MCP server expose?
XRPL Token Guard exposes 3 tools: check_token_safety, is_it_the_real_token, check_wallet_security. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 408 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the XRPL Token Guard MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to XRPL Token Guard without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the XRPL Token Guard MCP server still maintained?
XRPL Token Guard 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 XRPL Token Guard MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on XRPL Token Guard, 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.