io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory
REMOTE · ROOTS-MCP-SERVER.ROOTSBYBENDA.WORKERS.DEV · 2 COMPONENTS
Cosmetic safety: NOAEL, MoS, SCCS, 12 jurisdictions. 30K ingredients. Free.
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 4% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 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 Security46
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS enforcement could not be verified: the plaintext port answered with HTTP 404, which proves neither a plaintext path nor enforcement. View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared sse, but the endpoint returned HTTP 404. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
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.
- 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
- 26 Aug 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
- 11 Aug 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
- 4 Aug 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
- Stability: 0.27 → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: partial → unverified ▼ security
- HTTPS: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- First check of Schema quality: unverified functional
- 31 Jul 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
- 30 Jul 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 Jul 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
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://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=rootsbybenda.workers.dev | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 29 Sept 2026 | 28 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 15355523f9dba24913c1d5d4dc380a04 |
| SANs: rootsbybenda.workers.dev, *.rootsbybenda.workers.dev | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| workers.dev. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 404 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
| referrer-policy | same-origin |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| sse | https://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse | HTTP error | 404 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse | Inconclusive | 404 |
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 →
calculate_mos ~508
Calculate Margin of Safety for a cosmetic ingredient at a specific concentration following SCCS Notes of Guidance methodology. Input: ingredient name/INCI/CAS, concentration percentage, product type (e.g. 'body lotion', 'shampoo', 'lipstick'), optional body weight and dermal absorption override. Returns: NOAEL value with study source (species, route, duration), SCCS exposure parameters (daily exposure, retention factor), Systemic Exposure Dose (SED) calculation, Margin of Safety value, pass/fail assessment against MoS>100 threshold, and recommended maximum concentration if MoS fails. Sources: SCCS Notes of Guidance (11th Revision, SCCS/1628/21), NOAEL studies from ECHA/ToxValDB, SCCS exposure parameter tables. Database: 174,973 NOAEL studies searched for best available value. Use for cosmetic ingredient exposure assessment and safety calculations. Do not use for regulatory lookup alone (use check_ingredient), formula screening (use check_formula), or food/pharmaceutical exposure calculations.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| body_weight | number | – | Consumer body weight in kilograms for systemic exposure calculations (default: 60 for adults). Override when assessing children, low-body-weight consumers, or a scenario with a defined SCCS body-weig… |
| concentration | number | yes | Ingredient concentration in the finished cosmetic product as percent weight/weight (e.g. 0.5 for 0.5%). Use the maximum intended use concentration for conservative SCCS-style Margin of Safety assessm… |
| dermal_absorption | number | – | Dermal absorption percentage override from ingredient-specific toxicology or SCCS evidence. If not provided, the calculator uses the built-in default assumption and reports the absorption basis in th… |
| ingredient | string | yes | Cosmetic ingredient common name, INCI name, or CAS number for the MoS calculation (e.g. 'retinol', 'RETINOL', '68-26-8'). Use the exact INCI when available so NOAEL and dermal absorption evidence map… |
| product_type | string | yes | Cosmetic product type that determines exposure assumptions (e.g. 'body lotion', 'shampoo', 'lipstick', 'face cream', 'hand cream', 'shower gel', 'toothpaste', 'mouthwash', 'hair styling', 'deodorant'… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_formula ~416
Scan a cosmetic product INCI ingredient list for regulatory compliance and safety flags across multiple jurisdictions. Input: comma-separated INCI declaration as printed on a cosmetic product label (up to 50 ingredients). Returns per-ingredient: matched INCI name, CAS number, safety rating, EU and US regulatory status, concern level, regulatory flags, NOAEL values, and jurisdiction-specific restrictions including max concentration limits, product-type restrictions, and regulation references. Returns overall: LOW/MODERATE/HIGH formula risk assessment, flagged ingredient count with reasons, and jurisdiction-level compliance summary. Sources: EU Regulation 1223/2009, US FDA, Korea MFDS, Japan MHLW, ASEAN, Saudi SFDA, Canada Hotlist, Australia SUSMP, China IECIC. Database: 30,553 cosmetic ingredients across 55+ jurisdictions. Use for cosmetic formula safety screening and CPSR-style triage. Do not use for single ingredient lookup (use check_ingredient) or custom MoS calculations (use calculate_mos).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ingredients | string | yes | Comma-separated or newline-separated cosmetic INCI declaration exactly as it appears on a product label (e.g. 'Aqua, Retinol, Cetearyl Alcohol, Titanium Dioxide, Phenoxyethanol'). Max 50 ingredients… |
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional target cosmetic jurisdiction for compliance focus. Supported codes: 'EU' (Regulation 1223/2009), 'US' / 'US_FDA', 'Korea_MFDS', 'Japan_MHLW', 'ASEAN', 'Saudi_SFDA', 'Canada_Hotlist', 'Austra… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_ingredient ~432
Retrieve cosmetic ingredient safety data for regulatory compliance and safety assessment. Input: common name, INCI name, or CAS number (e.g. 'retinol', 'RETINOL', '68-26-8'). Returns: NOAEL study values with species/route/duration, pre-calculated Margin of Safety from SCCS opinions, GHS hazard classifications, EU/US/Korea/Japan/ASEAN/Saudi/Canada/Australia regulatory status across 12 jurisdictions, SCCS opinion summaries, CIR safety conclusions, dermal absorption profiles, sensitization data with patch-test frequencies, endocrine disruption flags, SVHC status, IFRA fragrance restrictions, China IECIC listing, and EU allergen classifications. Sources include ECHA IUCLID dossiers, SCCS opinions, CIR safety assessments, FDA, ToxValDB, and EPA CompTox. Database: 30,553 cosmetic ingredients, 174,973 NOAEL studies, 8,898 sensitization assays, 5,267 CIR safety conclusions, and 1,583 SCCS opinions. Use for cosmetic ingredient safety assessment. Do not use for full formula scans (use check_formula), MoS calculations with custom concentration (use calculate_mos), food additive questions, or pharmaceutical actives.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | string | – | Optional cosmetic regulatory market code for focused restriction checks. Legacy codes accepted: 'EU', 'US', 'CN', 'CA', 'KR', 'JP', 'BR', 'ASEAN', 'GCC', 'AU', 'IN', 'UK'. If omitted, the response st… |
| query | string | yes | Common cosmetic ingredient name (e.g. 'Retinol'), INCI name (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients, the standardized label name used for cosmetics, e.g. 'RETINOL'), or CAS number (Chemic… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_ingredients ~264
Search cosmetic ingredient records by partial name, function, category, or safety concept for ingredient discovery and selection. Input: keyword matching partial INCI name, function, or category (e.g. 'sunscreen', 'preservative', 'retinoid', 'fragrance allergen', 'humectant'). Returns: matching cosmetic ingredient names, INCI names, CAS numbers, functions/categories, safety ratings, EU regulatory status, concern levels, and NOAEL availability. Database: 30,553 cosmetic ingredients with safety profiles. Use for cosmetic ingredient discovery before checking a specific ingredient. Do not use when the user has an exact INCI/CAS and needs full safety data (use check_ingredient).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | number | – | Maximum number of cosmetic ingredient matches to return (1-20, default 10). Use higher limits for broad category discovery and lower limits for exact INCI/name searches. |
| query | string | yes | Cosmetic ingredient discovery keyword matching partial INCI/name, function, category, or ingredient family. Examples: 'sunscreen' for UV filters, 'preservative' for parabens and phenoxyethanol, 'reti… |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server?
io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory is a hosted endpoint at https://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse, 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 · roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev
claude mcp add --transport http rootsbymenda-cosmetic-regulatory 'https://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse'
What is the io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server?
io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory. Cosmetic safety: NOAEL, MoS, SCCS, 12 jurisdictions. 30K ingredients. Free. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://roots-mcp-server.rootsbybenda.workers.dev/sse).
Is the io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server safe to use?
io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory scores 18 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 io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server expose?
io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory exposes 4 tools: check_ingredient, check_formula, search_ingredients, calculate_mos. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,620 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory MCP server still maintained?
io.github.rootsbymenda/cosmetic-regulatory 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.