Code Index
MCPB · LINUX-X64 · 4 COMPONENTS
Fast local source code searching using Zoekt trigram-based indexing
Available components
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 86% of MCPB 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 Security0
- No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.Unverified
- Known CVEs could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
- Install-script risk not yet assessed.Unverified
- Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).Unverified
Provenance & Transparency43
- 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 339 days ago).Pass
- Disclosure check failed: no security disclosure policy was found in the source repository. See how to fix → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability79
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Tool/resource definitions use about 393 tokens (~49/item across 8 items; 8 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
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- All 1 tool(s) whose name or description implies an irreversible operation declare an MCP destructiveHint annotation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 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
Unverified: 1 category
A category scored 0 because we could not verify it: a data source with nothing on this package, evidence we could not reach, or a check we could not run. We only credit what we can confirm.
Checks we ran (12)
- Source repository
- Provenance
- License
- Maintenance
- Security disclosure
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Checks we could not complete (4)
These are gaps on our side, not findings about this package. We only credit what we can confirm, so a category made up entirely of them scores 0.
- Malware scan in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)No malware scan is available for this kind of package: the supply-chain vendors we use do not cover it. This is a permanent gap in our coverage, not a finding about the package.
- Known CVEs in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Known CVEs could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
- Install scripts in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Install-script risk not yet assessed.
- Dependency health in Supply Chain Security (scores 0 for this)Dependency health could not be checked: we found no dependency list to check in this bundle: either it runs a compiled binary, whose bundled manifests we do not read, or none of the package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml or uv.lock files it ships for its runtime declares a dependency we can read (a requirements.txt that only points at a setup.py project, a local path, or a nested requirements file we cannot follow counts as none).
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.
- 3 Nov 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 2 Nov 26 0
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 27 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 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.
- 17 Oct 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.
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 mcpb/https://github.com/trondhindenes/code-index-mcp/releases/download/1.0.16/code-index-mcp-linux-amd64.mcpb@1.0.16
Provenance No attestation
The registry publishes no build provenance for this version, so there is nothing to verify.
| Result | No attestation |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | mcpb |
| Reason | No attestation published |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
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 →
delete_index ~33
Delete the index for a specific directory
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | string | yes | The path to the directory whose index should be deleted |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
index_directory ~45
Index a source code directory for fast searching. Creates a Zoekt index that enables fast code search.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | string | yes | The absolute or relative path to the directory to index |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
index_info ~21
Get information about the indexing configuration, including the index storage location
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_indexes ~16
List all indexed directories and their status
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_code ~150
Search for code across indexed directories using Zoekt query syntax. Returns compact grep-like output.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | string | – | Optional: limit search to a specific indexed directory path |
| files_only | boolean | – | Only return file paths, no line content (default: false) |
| max_files | number | – | Maximum number of files to return (default: 20) |
| max_lines_per_file | number | – | Maximum matches to show per file (default: 3) |
| query | string | yes | The search query. Supports: regex patterns, 'file:pattern' for file filtering, 'lang:go' for language, '-pattern' for exclusion, 'case:yes' for case-sensitive |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
start_webserver ~91
Start the Zoekt web server for interactive code search in a browser. The server runs in the background and provides a web UI for searching indexed code. Port can be configured via CODE_INDEX_WEBSERVER_PORT environment variable (default: 6070).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | number | – | Port to run the web server on. Overrides CODE_INDEX_WEBSERVER_PORT env var. Use 0 for random available port. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
stop_webserver ~17
Stop the running Zoekt web server
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
webserver_status ~20
Get the current status of the Zoekt web server
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Code Index MCP server?
Code Index ships as an MCPB bundle, a single file you download and open in an MCP host that supports MCPB bundles, such as Claude Desktop. The host reads the launch command from the bundle's own manifest, so there is no command to copy. The MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check the download against.
mcpb · linux-x64
Download bundleThe MCP registry declares no SHA-256 for this bundle, so there is no published digest to check it against. Open it with an MCPB-capable host such as Claude Desktop.
What is the Code Index MCP server?
Code Index is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.trondhindenes/code-index-mcp. Fast local source code searching using Zoekt trigram-based indexing. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/trondhindenes/code-index-mcp/releases/download/1.0.16/code-index-mcp-linux-amd64.mcpb).
Is the Code Index MCP server safe to use?
Code Index scores 53 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 Code Index MCP server expose?
Code Index exposes 8 tools: delete_index, index_directory, index_info, list_indexes, search_code, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 393 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the Code Index MCP server under?
Code Index 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 Code Index MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 12 checks on Code Index, covering Source repository, Provenance, License, Maintenance and 8 more. 4 items could not be completed, a gap on our side rather than a finding about Code Index: Malware scan, Known CVEs, Install scripts and Dependency health. One category scores 0 for that reason, because we only credit what we can confirm. Endpoint Security and Transport & Reachability do not apply to an MCPB bundle, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.