ego-webqa
PYPI · EGO-WEBQA
Deterministic browser delivery checks for AI-generated web pages.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 78% of PyPI servers
Category Testing and QA
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 setuptools.build_meta at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 1 of 31 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency100
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to ROY32172310/qa). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 6 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability53
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 315 tokens (~315/item across 1 items; 1 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 Management27
- Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage67
- 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 2 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
Checks we ran (16)
- Malware scan
- Known CVEs
- Install scripts
- Dependency health
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
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 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 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 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 30 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.8.2 functional
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.8.1 functional
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.8.0 functional
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.7.0 functional
- 29 Oct 26 75
First indexed and scored.
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/ego-webqa@0.8.2
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | pypi |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | ROY32172310/qa |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/ROY32172310/qa/.github/workflows/release.yml@refs/tags/v0.8.2 |
| Rekor log index | 3590803583 |
| Predicate type | PyPI publish attestation https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/publish/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha256:3eb804c47d91edc5dbfdd2676383a02b2bf44d1e38446dc659e168fae95f0601 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Install scripts 1 script
| Hook | Tier | Command |
|---|---|---|
| build_backend | Known build tool | setuptools.build_meta |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Dependencies 31 packages
| Packages resolved | 31 |
|---|---|
| No linked repository | 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 →
audit_web_page Audit generated web page ~263
Audit a generated page in a real browser and return deterministic evidence. Provide exactly one of `url` or `directory`. The result is blocked when the page has a delivery error; warnings remain visible but do not block unless `fail_on_warn` is enabled in the JSON config. This checks delivery usability, not security, WCAG conformance, visual regression, or real-device Safari parity. Use browser_engine="webkit" for a WebKit approximation only.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| browser_engine | string | – | – |
| config | string | – | – |
| directory | string | – | – |
| file | string | – | – |
| out_dir | string | – | – |
| profile | string | – | – |
| ready_selector | string | – | – |
| smoke | boolean | – | – |
| smoke_flow_name | string | – | – |
| smoke_require_assertion | boolean | – | – |
| smoke_scope | string | – | – |
| smoke_selector | string | – | – |
| smoke_settle_ms | – | – | – |
| smoke_success_selector | string | – | – |
| smoke_success_url_pattern | string | – | – |
| timeout_ms | – | – | – |
| url | string | – | – |
| viewport_preset | string | – | – |
| viewports | – | – | – |
| wait_for_network_idle | boolean | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ego-webqa MCP server?
ego-webqa runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx ego-webqa mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · ego-webqa
claude mcp add roy32172310-qa -- uvx ego-webqa mcp
What is the ego-webqa MCP server?
ego-webqa is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.ROY32172310/qa. Deterministic browser delivery checks for AI-generated web pages. This page covers its PyPI package (ego-webqa).
Is the ego-webqa MCP server safe to use?
ego-webqa scores 79 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 6 November 2026. Its build provenance is signed and verified. 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 ego-webqa MCP server expose?
ego-webqa exposes 1 tool: audit_web_page. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 263 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the ego-webqa MCP server still maintained?
ego-webqa 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 ego-webqa MCP server under?
ego-webqa 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 ego-webqa MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 16 checks on ego-webqa, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 12 more. 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.