# XRPL Token Guard (remote · cocoeatsai.com)

Read-only XRP Ledger token-risk, issuer-authenticity and wallet-security checks.

- Trust score: 81/100 (high trust)
- Change this week: +3
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-11-05

## Components

- remote · `cocoeatsai.com`: 81/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `0.1.0`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-11-05.

- **Endpoint Security**: 74/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - 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.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 83/100
  - 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - 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.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 60/100
  - Stability observed for 18 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
  - Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.
- **Tool Safety**: 100/100
  - No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.
  - We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.
  - An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### 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.

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard 'https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp'
```

### Cursor

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard": {
      "url": "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### VS Code

```json
{
  "servers": {
    "riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard]
url = "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard --url 'https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp' --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard:
    url: "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
```

### Netclaw

```json
{
  "McpServers": {
    "riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard": {
      "Transport": "http",
      "Url": "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

### Vellum

```bash
assistant mcp add riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard -t streamable-http -u 'https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp'
```

### Other

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-11-04 (score 81, +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.

### 2026-11-02 (score 80, +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.

### 2026-10-31 (score 79, +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.

### 2026-10-29 (score 78, +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.

### 2026-10-27 (score 77, +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.

### 2026-10-25 (score 76, +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.

### 2026-10-23 (score 75, +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.

### 2026-10-20 (score 74, +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.

## MCP tools (3)

### `check_token_safety` (~160 tokens)

Check an XRPL token's safety

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.

Input parameters:

- `currency` (string, required): Token ticker as shown in wallets (e.g. RLUSD, SOLO) or its 40-character hex currency code.
- `issuer` (string, required): The token issuer's XRPL address (starts with r).

Output parameters:

- `checked_at` (string)
- `disclaimer` (string)
- `facts` (object)
- `findings` (array)
- `ledger_index` (number|null)
- `more_info_url` (string|null)
- `reasons` (array): The top reasons behind the verdict, most important first.
- `score` (number): 0-100 mechanical score; not a safety probability. Clawback is a high-risk control-policy failure.
- `spoken_summary` (string): One or two sentences ready for text-to-speech.
- `token` (object)
- `verdict` (string)
- `verdict_label` (string)

### `is_it_the_real_token` (~176 tokens)

Is this the real token?

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.

Input parameters:

- `issuer` (string): Optional issuer address to verify.
- `ticker` (string, required): The token name or ticker the user mentioned, e.g. RLUSD.

Output parameters:

- `is_official` (boolean|null)
- `known_brand` (boolean)
- `message` (string)
- `official`
- `spoken_summary` (string)
- `ticker` (string)

### `check_wallet_security` (~72 tokens)

Check an XRPL wallet for takeover signs

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.

Input parameters:

- `address` (string, required): The wallet's XRPL address (starts with r).

Output parameters:

- `address` (string)
- `checked_at` (string)
- `disclaimer` (string)
- `facts` (object)
- `findings` (array)
- `spoken_summary` (string)
- `verdict` (string)
- `verdict_label` (string)

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-11-05: 81
- 2026-11-04: 81
- 2026-11-03: 80
- 2026-11-02: 80
- 2026-11-01: 79
- 2026-10-31: 79
- 2026-10-30: 78
- 2026-10-29: 78
- 2026-10-28: 77
- 2026-10-27: 77
- 2026-10-26: 76
- 2026-10-25: 76
- 2026-10-24: 75
- 2026-10-23: 75
- 2026-10-22: 74
- 2026-10-21: 74
- 2026-10-20: 74
- 2026-10-19: 73
- 2026-10-18: 73

## Common questions

### 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.

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://cocoeatsai.com/area4/guard/mcp
- Repository: https://github.com/Riehnbean/xrpl-token-guard
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp/changelog.json
- Trust report (JSON): https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/riehnbean-xrpl-token-guard/area4-guard-mcp