ember
PYPI · EMBER-ADVISE
Calibrated advice for coding agents: typed questions in, probabilities out. Apple Silicon.
Available components
Last scanned (1 day ago)
Scores higher than 0% of PyPI servers
Category AI and Machine Learning
Recent critical change
CVE-2026-112398 affects this package (24 Oct 2026). See the changelog before you install this server.
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 Security75
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: an unpatched critical CVE affects this package; the score is capped at 0. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 4 of 91 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 21 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability67
- 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 671 tokens (~335/item across 2 items; 1 tools + 1 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 Management47
- Stability observed for 14 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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 1 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 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
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.
- 29 Oct 26 0
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 24 Oct 26 0
- CVE-2026-112398 affects this package: high ▼ critical
- Source repository: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 23 Oct 26 0
- CVE-2026-96639 affects this package: high ▼ critical
- Provenance: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 22 Oct 26 0
- CVE-2026-112393 affects this package: high ▼ critical
- CVE-2026-112900 affects this package: high ▼ critical
- 21 Oct 26 −25
- CVE-2026-112403 affects this package: high ▼ critical
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ critical
- Score status: scored → failed ▼ critical
- Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
- First check of Judged manipulation: pass security
- Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.00 ▲ functional
- MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ 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: fail functional
- First check of Schema quality: good functional
- First check of Tool coverage: 100 functional
- 18 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 17 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 14 Oct 26 −15
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: Stability not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to compare. security
- Tool safety: Tool safety not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool text to scan. security
- Schema quality: Schema quality not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no schema to assess. functional
- Capabilities: Protocol version not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we never saw its MCP handshake. functional
- Tool coverage: Tool coverage not yet verified: our sandbox could not run this package, so we have no tool definitions to assess. functional
- Package version: 0.15.0 → 0.16.0 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 4 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/ember-advise@0.16.0
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 | allowlisted | hatchling.build |
Background: Why install scripts are a supply-chain risk →
Vulnerabilities 59 findings
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-22hg-r758-rrw9 | CVE-2026-112390 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-24rc-8hj2-v98c | CVE-2026-96638 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-254f-3936-288h | CVE-2026-112391 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-27h8-gf7j-v5hc | CVE-2026-112392 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-332p-7hrc-92wf | CVE-2026-112393 | critical | yes | |
| GHSA-3j72-p6qg-6xp7 | CVE-2026-96642 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-4558-3h8r-v8xp | CVE-2026-112394 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-462x-pgg6-55fp | CVE-2026-112395 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L | yes |
| GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg | CVE-2026-96641 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-4rr5-89j8-mwwm | CVE-2026-112396 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-58r4-6rv3-gfh8 | CVE-2026-112397 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-5x8w-8jj5-q52h | CVE-2026-112398 | critical | yes | |
| GHSA-5xm2-6676-qcp9 | CVE-2026-112399 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-654x-cwwv-5j9c | CVE-2026-114501 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-65qm-jvmh-6pqg | CVE-2026-112400 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-74r2-7ff9-mjj2 | CVE-2026-112401 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-78g4-xqwv-q3g8 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes | |
| GHSA-7mwm-ghpf-9vrm | CVE-2026-112402 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-8g5g-8vmr-9782 | CVE-2026-112403 | critical | yes | |
| GHSA-9v9v-9qvf-h2hj | CVE-2026-96644 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-c6hw-5grf-ff96 | CVE-2026-112404 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-cp9v-662q-vvx9 | CVE-2026-112405 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-f2g6-542v-9j58 | CVE-2026-112406 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-fc9g-5qg7-mf45 | CVE-2026-112891 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-g4qv-2jxx-769h | CVE-2026-96643 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-g7cr-3p24-7wf7 | CVE-2026-96778 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-g842-9rc4-69pw | CVE-2026-96637 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-gg2r-wvfm-q9rx | CVE-2026-112892 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-j4m9-6w36-pw47 | CVE-2026-112893 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-jg86-v3jv-hrpm | CVE-2026-112894 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-mrfp-p49p-3hf2 | CVE-2026-96640 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-p4wg-p73j-c528 | CVE-2026-112895 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-p8hx-v2p6-rp84 | CVE-2026-96636 | medium | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-pchr-8j38-3x4p | CVE-2026-112896 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-q45j-58j2-45rg | CVE-2026-112897 | high | yes | |
| GHSA-rfgq-q3w2-pmv2 | CVE-2026-112898 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-v9pv-5gc8-w2m6 | CVE-2026-96639 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| GHSA-vx6w-vv9f-6gvg | CVE-2026-112899 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-w889-685w-c8fh | CVE-2026-112900 | critical | yes | |
| GHSA-xgh8-jp6q-p5x8 | CVE-2026-112901 | medium | yes | |
| GHSA-xvh5-g6gv-559v | CVE-2026-112902 | high | yes | |
| PYSEC-2026-4326 | CVE-2026-112392 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4327 | CVE-2026-112394 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4328 | CVE-2026-112396 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4329 | CVE-2026-112397 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4330 | CVE-2026-112398 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4331 | CVE-2026-112402 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4332 | CVE-2026-112403 | critical | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4333 | CVE-2026-112405 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
| PYSEC-2026-4334 | CVE-2026-112896 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:H | yes |
Showing 50 of 59 vulnerabilities.
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 91 packages
| Packages resolved | 91 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 3 |
| 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 →
advise ~155
Get ember's read on a situation, as calibrated probabilities. ember (a decision model) advises; you decide. Consult it at bounded decision points: intent, triage, routing, yes/no gates, and risk, severity, or effort scores. It sees only what you pass, so include every piece of evidence the call depends on and attach images or video frames as base64 `data:` URIs in `images`/`videos` when pixels are the evidence. For 'choice' the answer has the leading option, its confidence, and full probabilities; for 'score' an expected score over the ordered criteria; for 'noul' the probability the proposition is true.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | – | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the ember MCP server?
ember runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx ember-advise. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · ember-advise
claude mcp add shapeandshare-ember -- uvx ember-advise
What is the ember MCP server?
ember is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.shapeandshare/ember. Calibrated advice for coding agents: typed questions in, probabilities out. Apple Silicon. This page covers its PyPI package (ember-advise).
What tools does the ember MCP server expose?
ember exposes 1 tool: advise. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 155 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the ember MCP server still maintained?
ember is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 4 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 ember MCP server under?
ember declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.