Tanilo
NPM · TANILO-MCP
Tanilo checks the premise before an AI agent acts.
Available components
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 49% of npm servers
Category Finance and Payments
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 Security81
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known high-severity CVE affects zod 3.25.76, a direct dependency. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 30 of 93 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency45
- 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 22 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability69
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 697 tokens (~174/item across 4 items; 4 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 Management73
- Stability observed for 22 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 4 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 supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 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.
- 4 Nov 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.
- 2 Nov 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.
- 31 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.
- 29 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.
- 27 Oct 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.
- 25 Oct 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.
- 24 Oct 26 −5
- CVE-2023-54404 affects this package: high ▼ security
- Known CVEs: pass → fail ▼ security
- 22 Oct 26 +4
- Stability: unverified → 0.27 ▲ 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 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed npm/tanilo-mcp@3.1.0
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-mrhx-c7xc-m3w5 | CVE-2023-54404 | high | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 93 packages
| Packages resolved | 93 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 30 |
| 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 →
check-contract-price ~296
Does this offer match the terms you supplied? Before an agent accepts an offer, contract_price_match compares the offer's unit price with the applicable term among the terms you supply, and signs the result when signing succeeds. No model is involved: the result is arithmetic and exact comparison, and anyone holding the same input can recompute it. You supply the terms; Tanilo does not hold or look up your contracts. Three results: verified, contradicted, or indeterminate with a reason. A verified result says the price matches the supplied term. Whether to pay is your policy's decision. A valid signature shows which key signed these bytes and that they have not changed since. It does not show that the supplied terms were genuine. POST /v1/verify-facts is live in free beta, rate-limited, no key needed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | string | – | Optional agent identifier recorded in the receipt; otherwise the receipt carries the placeholder urn:tanilo:verify-facts:anonymous |
| claim_hash | string | – | Optional subject.claim_hash. Any hash that identifies the purchase for you; by default the SHA-256 of the canonical JSON of the input object is used. |
| offer | object | yes | The offer to check |
| terms | array | yes | The terms you supply (caller-supplied, not verified as genuine). May be empty: the result is then indeterminate with reason no_applicable_term. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check-health ~46
Returns the Tanilo API's status document (GET https://api.tanilo.io/health): service status, the live routes and their prices, the retired routes, and rate limits.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check-spend-cap ~299
Does this offer fit within the cap you supplied? Before an agent commits to a purchase, spend_cap multiplies the offer's unit price by its quantity, exactly, and compares the total with the remaining cap you supply. It signs the result when signing succeeds. You supply the cap and already_spent. This check does not retrieve budget balances, maintain a running balance or reserve funds. Three results: verified, contradicted, or indeterminate with a reason. A verified result says the offer's total is within the remaining cap. Whether to pay is your policy's decision. Verify the receipt's signature against a key set you have authenticated as Tanilo's. A valid signature establishes that the signed content verifies under the selected key and has not been altered. It does not establish that the supplied cap is authentic, approved or current, or that the purchase is authorized.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | string | – | Optional agent identifier recorded in the receipt; otherwise the receipt carries the placeholder urn:tanilo:verify-facts:anonymous |
| cap | object | yes | The cap you supply (caller-supplied). This check does not establish that the cap is authentic, approved or applicable to this purchase, or that already_spent is complete or current. |
| claim_hash | string | – | Optional subject.claim_hash; by default the SHA-256 of the canonical JSON of the input object is used. |
| offer | object | yes | The offer to check |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get-manifest ~56
Returns the Tanilo API's discovery document (GET https://api.tanilo.io/.well-known/x402-manifest.json). It lists no payable resources: the paid research routes were retired on 2026-10-04.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Tanilo MCP server?
Tanilo runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y tanilo-mcp. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · tanilo-mcp
claude mcp add tkcollective-tanilo-mcp -- npx -y tanilo-mcp
What is the Tanilo MCP server?
Tanilo is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.TKCollective/tanilo-mcp. Tanilo checks the premise before an AI agent acts. This page covers its npm package (tanilo-mcp).
Is the Tanilo MCP server safe to use?
Tanilo scores 74 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 5 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. 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 Tanilo MCP server expose?
Tanilo exposes 4 tools: check-contract-price, check-spend-cap, check-health, get-manifest. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 697 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the Tanilo MCP server still maintained?
Tanilo 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 Tanilo MCP server under?
Tanilo 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 Tanilo MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 16 checks on Tanilo, covering Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts, Dependency health and 12 more. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an npm package, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.