RFC lookup
PYPI · MCP-SERVER-RFC
40x fewer tokens while reading the RFC corpus and flag obsoleted specs.
Available components
Last scanned (5 hours ago)
Scores higher than 56% of PyPI servers
Category Code Search and Documentation
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 Security50
- Malware scan not yet available for this package.Unverified
- No known CVEs affecting this package version or its production dependencies.Pass
- Runs hatchling.build at install time, a recognised build step with no custom scripting around it. View diagnostics → Pass
- 1 of 28 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 5 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability56
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 780 tokens (~260/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 Management40
- Stability observed for 12 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 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 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.
- 5 Nov 26 −14
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
- Security disclosure: fail → pass ▲ functional
- 31 Oct 26 +16
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 30 Oct 26 −12
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Stability: unverified → 0.20 ▲ functional
- Package version: 0.6.0 → 0.6.1 functional
- 25 Oct 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 24 Oct 26 49
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 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed pypi/mcp-server-rfc@0.6.1
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 →
Dependencies 28 packages
| Packages resolved | 28 |
|---|---|
| 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 →
get_rfc ~240
Read an RFC. Call list_sections first and pass a section — whole RFCs average 53 KB and run past 1.6 MB, and reading one in full is almost never what the question needs. section accepts a number ('9.3.1') or heading text ('Idempotent Methods') and includes that section's subsections. Any read of more than 1500 lines that is not a named section is an error naming its size, not a silent context-filling dump; pass full=true only when the entire text is genuinely what you need. start_line and max_lines are 1 or more. max_lines caps any read, including a section, and is the way to take the first part of one that list_sections showed is long. start_line is the fallback for RFCs without numbered headings and cannot be combined with section. Page headers and footers are stripped. The response carries a banner naming the RFC's status and, if it has been superseded, what replaced it.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | boolean | – | – |
| max_lines | – | – | – |
| number | – | yes | – |
| section | – | – | – |
| start_line | – | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_sections ~132
List an RFC's numbered headings with their line numbers and how many lines each one runs to. Cheap, and the right first call when you need part of a specification: use it to pick a section, then pass that section to get_rfc. The line counts are there to be read — a section of a few hundred lines is a normal read, and one running to four figures wants a subsection or a max_lines cap instead. Some pre-1990 RFCs have no numbered headings, in which case this returns an empty list and get_rfc's line range is the way in.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | – | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_rfcs ~358
Search RFCs. scope='title' matches all query terms against RFC titles and always works. scope='fulltext' searches the text of every RFC and needs either the section index or a local mirror the user has set up; it returns an error explaining what to run if there is neither. With the section index ('tool' is 'index'), the query is words, not a phrase: each result is one section, ranked by BM25 with headings weighted, carrying its 'section' number (null for the front matter), 'heading', 'line' and how many 'lines' it runs to, and a 'snippet' quoting its best line. Pass that section straight to get_rfc. Without the index ('tool' is 'rg' or 'grep'), the query is a literal string, each result is one RFC ranked by 'matching_lines', and 'matches' quotes a few lines with the section each falls in. regex=true opts into pattern matching, which only the mirror can do, in the backend's dialect. Results carry each RFC's status and obsolescence, and title results put current RFCs before superseded ones, so a page cut short at 'limit' keeps the replacement rather than the document it replaced. A 'note' says when the index could not be used. 'count' is how many results this page holds and 'total' is how many matched; when 'truncated' is true, report 'total' and raise 'limit' (at most 200) rather than counting the results you were given. An empty query is an error.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
| query | string | yes | – |
| regex | boolean | – | – |
| scope | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the RFC lookup MCP server?
RFC lookup runs locally as a PyPI package, launched with uvx mcp-server-rfc. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
pypi · mcp-server-rfc
claude mcp add shbernal-rfc-ai-tooling -- uvx mcp-server-rfc
What is the RFC lookup MCP server?
RFC lookup is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.shbernal/rfc-ai-tooling. 40x fewer tokens while reading the RFC corpus and flag obsoleted specs. This page covers its PyPI package (mcp-server-rfc).
Is the RFC lookup MCP server safe to use?
RFC lookup scores 56 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We found no known CVEs affecting it as of 5 November 2026. 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 RFC lookup MCP server expose?
RFC lookup exposes 3 tools: search_rfcs, list_sections, get_rfc. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 730 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the RFC lookup MCP server still maintained?
RFC lookup 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 licence is the RFC lookup MCP server under?
RFC lookup declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.