Sirveil Exposure
REMOTE · AI.SIRVEIL.AI · SCANNED SEP 22
Is this person indexed on that data-broker domain? A three-state verdict, with the evidence.
Available components
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 Security80
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability68
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 298 tokens (~298/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 Management90
- Stability observed for 27 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage87
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 60% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
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
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
How do I install the Sirveil Exposure MCP server?
Sirveil Exposure is a hosted endpoint at https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/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.
remote · ai.sirveil.ai
claude mcp add --transport http sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure 'https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure": {
"url": "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure] url = "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure --url 'https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure:
url: "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp" {
"McpServers": {
"sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp"
}
}
} assistant mcp add sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure -t streamable-http -u 'https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp'
{
"mcpServers": {
"sirveil-ai-sirveil-exposure": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 21 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 19 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 12 Sept 26 +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.
- 10 Sept 26 +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.
- 8 Sept 26 +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.
- 6 Sept 26 +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.
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 22 Sept 2026 · Probed https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=ai.sirveil.ai | CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 20 Aug 2026 | 18 Nov 2026 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 59c30d02459fcee547f2dd0d08179f9f0ba |
| SANs: ai.sirveil.ai | ||||||
| CN=YR2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | 4ebd24947e24d394802d84a52fd5b319 |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of ai.sirveil.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 3799 | 8 | Verified |
| sirveil.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=63072000 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 308 | https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp |
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 →
verify_indexed Check if an identity is indexed on a data-broker domain ~257
Asks whether a named person is indexed on one data-broker domain, and returns the evidence. Returns one of exactly three states: `indexed` (a matching listing was found), `not_indexed` (the domain was searched and nothing matched), or `indeterminate` (searched, but the evidence was too weak to call). `indeterminate` is a real answer — do NOT report it to the user as "not found", because that claims an absence that was not observed. This reports INDEX PRESENCE only. The broker page is not fetched, so a listing that has been removed but is still in the search index will read as `indexed`.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | string | – | Improves accuracy substantially. Supply when known. |
| dob | string | – | ISO date, or a year alone. |
| domain | string | yes | Bare hostname of the broker to check, e.g. "whitepages.com". |
| string | – | – | |
| firstName | string | yes | Given name. |
| lastName | string | yes | Family name. |
| middleName | string | – | – |
| phone | string | – | – |
| state | string | – | Two-letter code or full name. |
| street | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
What is the Sirveil Exposure MCP server?
Sirveil Exposure is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.sirveil-ai/sirveil-exposure. Is this person indexed on that data-broker domain? A three-state verdict, with the evidence. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://ai.sirveil.ai/api/v1/mcp).
Is the Sirveil Exposure MCP server safe to use?
Sirveil Exposure scores 82 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 Sirveil Exposure MCP server expose?
Sirveil Exposure exposes 1 tool: verify_indexed. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 257 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Sirveil Exposure MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Sirveil Exposure without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Sirveil Exposure MCP server still maintained?
Sirveil Exposure is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 22 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.