Strategic Flow MCP
REMOTE · MCP.STRATEGICFLOW.TECH
Audit B2B SaaS lifecycle emails with the 7-point Decision Friction Model: score, patterns, fixes.
Available components
Last scanned (22 hours ago)
Scores higher than 85% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 4 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
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 Security63
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 2 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Unverified
- 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 Usability81
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 238 tokens (~119/item across 2 items; 2 tools + 0 resources), lean.Pass
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (50% 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 2 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 supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 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.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 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.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 67 to 70. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 20 days of observed history at the previous scan, 21 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 60 to 63. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 18 days of observed history at the previous scan, 19 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 19 Oct 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.
- 17 Oct 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.
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 · Probed https://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=mcp.strategicflow.tech | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 24 Aug 2026 | 22 Nov 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6b589a1ef2c949f17c2adbcbaabad7d5a4f |
| SANs: mcp.strategicflow.tech | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.strategicflow.tech. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| tech. | present | 2185 | 13 | Verified |
| strategicflow.tech. | 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; includeSubDomains |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://mcp.strategicflow.tech:443/api/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 →
ask_strategic_flow Ask Strategic Flow ~81
Ask Strategic Flow about email conversion, funnel friction, the Decision Friction Model methodology, or Strategic Flow Tech services.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | string | yes | Required API key from /api/mcp/claim-key. |
| question | string | yes | Your question about email conversion, funnel friction, the Decision Friction Model methodology, or Strategic Flow Tech services. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
audit_email Audit Email ~157
Audit a SaaS lifecycle email using the 7-point Decision Friction Model and return a structured conversion diagnosis.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | string | yes | Required API key from /api/mcp/claim-key. |
| audience | string | – | Optional description of the intended email audience. |
| body | string | yes | The full email body, including its copy and calls to action. |
| desired_action | string | – | Optional action the sender wants the reader to take. |
| email_type | string | – | Optional lifecycle context, such as "trial onboarding", "changelog", or "re-engagement". |
| preview_text | string | – | Optional preview or preheader text shown beside the subject. |
| subject | string | yes | The email subject line to audit. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_record_id | string | – | Identifier of the stored upstream audit record. |
| audits_remaining | integer | – | Number of audits remaining after this request. |
| audits_used | integer | – | Number of audits used after this request. |
| changes | array | – | Changes made by the audit service. |
| cta_diagnosis_direction | string | – | Diagnosis and direction for the call to action. |
| cta_exact_line | string | – | Exact CTA line from the email, or an explicit no-CTA statement. |
| cta_pattern | – | – | The Decision Friction Model pattern that best describes the CTA. |
| cta_pattern_definition | string | – | Plain-language definition of the CTA pattern. |
| cta_rewrite | string | – | A specific rewritten CTA for this email. |
| cta_weakness | string | – | Concrete explanation of why this CTA is weak. |
| message | string | – | Friendly usage or next-step message when no diagnosis is returned. |
| original_score | number | – | Original structural email score from 0 to 10 for members. |
| original_subject | string | – | The original email subject sent for rebuilding. |
| overall_score | string | – | Structural email score from 0/10 to 10/10. |
| primary_friction_pattern | string | – | The main Decision Friction Model pattern found. |
| primary_friction_pattern_definition | string | – | Plain-language definition of the primary pattern. |
| primary_friction_pattern_evidence | string | – | Exact problematic phrase from this email showing the primary pattern. |
| primary_friction_pattern_impact | string | – | Concrete reason the primary pattern can reduce response or conversion. |
| raw_response | string | – | The upstream diagnosis when it cannot be safely parsed into validated fields. |
| rebuilt_body | string | – | The rebuilt email body. |
| rebuilt_cta | string | – | The rebuilt call to action. |
| rebuilt_score | number | – | Rebuilt structural email score from 0 to 10 for members. |
| rebuilt_subject | string | – | The rebuilt email subject. |
| recommended_structural_change | string | – | The highest-impact structural change to make. |
| result_type | string | yes | Whether the diagnosis was parsed into validated model fields. |
| secondary_friction_pattern | – | – | A secondary Decision Friction Model pattern, if present. |
| secondary_friction_pattern_definition | string | – | Plain-language definition of the secondary pattern, when present. |
| secondary_friction_pattern_evidence | string | – | Exact problematic phrase from this email showing the secondary pattern. |
| secondary_friction_pattern_impact | string | – | Concrete reason the secondary pattern can reduce response or conversion. |
| short_diagnosis | string | – | Brief explanation of the core structural conversion friction. |
| structured_fixes | array | – | Structured email fixes returned by the audit service. |
| upgrade_url | – | – | Upgrade URL returned by the audit service. |
| variants | array | – | Alternative rebuild variants returned by the audit service. |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Strategic Flow MCP server?
Strategic Flow MCP is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/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 · mcp.strategicflow.tech
claude mcp add --transport http tech-strategicflow-mcp 'https://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/mcp'
What is the Strategic Flow MCP server?
Strategic Flow MCP is listed in the public MCP registry as tech.strategicflow/mcp. Audit B2B SaaS lifecycle emails with the 7-point Decision Friction Model: score, patterns, fixes. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.strategicflow.tech/api/mcp).
Is the Strategic Flow MCP server safe to use?
Strategic Flow MCP 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 Strategic Flow MCP server expose?
Strategic Flow MCP exposes 2 tools: ask_strategic_flow, audit_email. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 238 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Strategic Flow MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Strategic Flow MCP without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Strategic Flow MCP server still maintained?
Strategic Flow MCP 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.