Skip to content
verify mcp Beta VerifyMCP is currently in beta. If you notice any issues, get in touch and we’ll put it right.

Salesforce AgentForce CKG

REMOTE · CKG-AGENTFORCE.ONRENDER.COM · 2 COMPONENTS

Salesforce AgentForce knowledge graph — 40 nodes, Einstein Trust Layer, 11x fewer tokens than RAG.

+1 this week 77 Trust /100

Last scanned (22 hours ago)

Scores higher than 69% of remote servers

Reachable. Last reached 4 Nov 2026.

Category AI and Machine Learning

Trust breakdown (7 categories)

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 Security57
Transport & Reachability100
Schema Quality & AI Usability83
  • 100% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Pass
  • AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
  • Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1591 tokens (~132/item across 12 items; 10 tools + 2 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 Management97
  • Stability observed for 29 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
  • 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
  • Structured output schemas are declared (100% 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 10 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
  • An AI judge read all 12 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
Changelog

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 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.

  • 3 Nov 26 +53
    • Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
    • Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 10 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
    • Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
    • MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
    • Stability: unverified → 0.93 ▲ functional
    • Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
    • Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
  • 2 Nov 26 −54
    • Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
    • Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
    • Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
    • Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
    • Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
    • Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
    • Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
    • Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
  • 31 Oct 26 +54
    • Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
    • Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 10 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
    • Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
    • Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
    • Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
    • MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
  • 30 Oct 26 −53
    • Endpoint reachability: reachable → not serving MCP ▼ security
    • Stability: 0.93 → unverified ▼ security
    • Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
    • Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
    • Authorization: Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. security
    • Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
    • Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
    • Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
  • 27 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 −2
    • Stability: pass → 0.80 functional
  • 24 Oct 26 +54
    • Stability: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Injection markers: unverified → pass ▲ security
    • Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
    • Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 10 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe. security
    • Endpoint reachability: not serving MCP → reachable ▲ functional
    • Tool coverage: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
    • Schema quality: unverified → 100 ▲ functional
    • MCP protocol: unverified → pass ▲ functional
Diagnostics

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://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject Issuer Valid from Valid until Key Signature Serial
CN=onrender.com CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US 21 Sept 2026 20 Dec 2026 ECDSA 256 ECDSA-SHA256 6eb1e3fe7d0631ea1337bfa4a321c137
SANs: onrender.com, *.onrender.com
CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US 13 Dec 2023 20 Feb 2029 ECDSA 256 ECDSA-SHA384 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3
CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE 15 Nov 2023 28 Jan 2028 ECDSA 384 SHA256-RSA 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b

Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of ckg-agentforce.onrender.com. — Not signed

Zone DS Keys Algorithms Outcome
. trust_anchor 20326, 38696 8, 8 Verified
com. present 19718 13 Verified
onrender.com. 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

Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →

Transports 2 probes
Transport URL Outcome Status Location
streamable-http https://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp Verified 200
http (plaintext) http://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp HTTPS enforced 301 https://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp
MCP tools · 10 exposed · ~1,315 tokens

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 →

Tool Tokens
evaluate_trust_chain ~205

Return a machine-readable JSON trust chain + ROI analysis + payment recommendation. Designed for autonomous agent consumption. The agent reads the JSON, evaluates the ROI gate, selects the cheapest positive-ROI payment option, and purchases autonomously if budget is pre-authorized. Trust chain closes the audit gap that RAG cannot: source_hashes → SHA-256 of source docs (what was known at extraction time) graph_hash → SHA-256 of the installed graph file (what is declared now) signer_key_id → Ed25519 public key fingerprint (who is attesting) benchmark_receipt → BoundaryAttest-signed F1 claim (cryptographic performance proof) scitt_status → SCITT ledger submission status (public audit anchor) ROI gate: if total_value_per_call_usd > payment_option.price_per_call_usd → autonomous_pay = true. Returns: JSON string (schema: ckg-trust-chain-v1).

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

export_benchmark_receipt ~119

Generate a signed BoundaryAttest receipt for the agentforce CKG benchmark result. Produces a `ckg.benchmark_result.exported` claim signed with this server's Ed25519 session key. Any party holding the public key can verify the signature over the canonical JSON claim. Implements GuardrailDecisionV1 · experimental-interop-v0.1. Result: F1 0.471 over 30 queries · ckg-benchmark v0.6.2 · 4× over RAG baseline (0.123).

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

get_prerequisites ~72

Return the full ordered prerequisite chain for an AgentForce concept. Shows everything the concept depends on — the complete upstream path. Args: concept: Target concept — e.g. 'Autonomous Resolution', 'Multi-LoRA Serving', 'Custom Actions', 'Semantic Retrieval'.

NameTypeReqDescription
conceptstringyes–
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

list_concepts ~21

List all 40 AgentForce concepts in this knowledge graph.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

query_ckg ~112

Traverse the AgentForce knowledge graph from any concept. Returns prerequisites (what this concept needs) and dependents (what it enables). Every relationship traces to an authoritative Salesforce doc URL. Args: concept: Concept name — e.g. 'Autonomous Resolution', 'Einstein Trust Layer', 'Service Agent', 'Grounding', 'NVIDIA NIM'. depth: Traversal depth 1–5 (default 3).

NameTypeReqDescription
conceptstringyes–
depthinteger––
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

query_intersect ~367

Answer a conjunctive query: concepts reachable from EVERY anchor at once (A AND B). query_ckg walks outward from one concept. This intersects the reachable sets of two or more, which is the shape of most real questions — "the component that satisfies A AND applies to B". Neither anchor alone answers it; the answer lives in the overlap. Every branch is an exact set of declared edges, so the intersection is exact. A concept appears only if a declared path reaches it from each anchor. A relation missing from the graph produces an empty result, never a guess. Args: branches: Two or more branches. Either a bare anchor ("TensorRT-LLM"), which takes everything within `depth` hops, or an anchor plus an explicit relation path using '>' ("TensorRT-LLM > REQUIRES > ENABLES"), where each relation replaces the frontier. '*' matches any relation. Mix both forms freely. depth: Hops for bare-anchor branches, 1-5 (default 2). Ignored for explicit paths. direction: 'out' follows dependencies, 'in' follows them backwards, 'both' (default). mode: 'AND' (default) intersects branches; 'OR' unions them. limit: Max concepts listed, 1-200 (default 40). The true count is always shown. Returns: Markdown with the query plan and its per-step set sizes, then the answer set with taxonomy tags. Reports which branch was empty when the intersection is empty.

NameTypeReqDescription
branchesarrayyes–
depthinteger––
directionstring––
limitinteger––
modestring––
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

resolution_path ~47

Trace the exact path that determines an AgentForce autonomous resolution event. This is the $2/resolution billing path — what the agent must traverse correctly to resolve autonomously without human handoff.

Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.

NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

route_query ~182

Route an AgentForce question to the optimal model and reasoning approach via graph depth. The CKG graph IS the router. AgentForce dependency chains (e.g. Einstein Trust Layer → Data Cloud → NVIDIA NIM → Resolution Criteria) have typed hops that signal reasoning complexity deterministically. No heuristic: the graph decides. Routing table: hop_depth 1 → haiku · direct (simple concept lookup) hop_depth 2 → sonnet · generic_cot (moderate chain) hop_depth 3+ → opus · sparql_cot (deep dependency, structured reasoning) Args: question: Concept name or natural language question about Salesforce AgentForce. Returns: model_tier + reasoning_approach + why + context subgraph to inject before LLM call.

NameTypeReqDescription
questionstringyes–
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

search_concepts ~51

Find AgentForce concepts by keyword. Args: query: Search term — e.g. 'resolution', 'trust', 'grounding', 'action', 'NIM'.

NameTypeReqDescription
querystringyes–
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

verify_source ~139

Return the source URL and content hash for an AgentForce concept node. Audit chain: edge answer → graph commit → source_hash → source_url (fetch hint) Verification: curl -s <source_url> | sha256sum # compare output to source_hash Args: concept: Concept label (partial match supported). receipt: If True, also return a signed BoundaryAttest receipt envelope (experimental-interop-v0.1) binding concept_label + source_url + source_hash + timestamp to this server's ed25519 session key.

NameTypeReqDescription
conceptstringyes–
receiptboolean––
NameTypeReqDescription
resultstringyes–

No examples provided.

Install

How do I install the Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server?

Salesforce AgentForce CKG is a hosted endpoint at https://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/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 · ckg-agentforce.onrender.com

# add to Claude Code
claude mcp add --transport http yarmoluk-ckg-agentforce 'https://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp'
Common questions

What is the Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server?

Salesforce AgentForce CKG is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.Yarmoluk/ckg-agentforce. Salesforce AgentForce knowledge graph, 40 nodes, Einstein Trust Layer, 11x fewer tokens than RAG. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://ckg-agentforce.onrender.com/mcp).

Is the Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server safe to use?

Salesforce AgentForce CKG scores 77 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 Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server expose?

Salesforce AgentForce CKG exposes 10 tools: list_concepts, search_concepts, query_ckg, get_prerequisites, resolution_path, and 5 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,315 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.

Does the Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server require authentication?

No. We connected to Salesforce AgentForce CKG without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.

Is the Salesforce AgentForce CKG MCP server still maintained?

Salesforce AgentForce CKG 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.