io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru
REMOTE · TOKKYO-MARU.FLY.DEV
特許まる — 発明を入れるだけで特許性の事前診断・明細書骨子・新規性喪失(特許法30条)判定。本人/弁理士の出願支援(代理しない)。
Available components
Last scanned (2 hours ago)
Scores higher than 53% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Education and Research
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
- 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 3 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
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- 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 Usability48
- AI-judged instruction clarity (fair).Partial
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 712 tokens (~237/item across 3 items; 3 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage78
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 33% 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 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities20
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2024-11-05; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
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.
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Aug 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 11 Aug 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 31 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 30 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 28 Jul 26 0
- HSTS header: unverified → fail ▼ security
- Transport: fail → pass ▲ security
- Authorization: Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 3 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
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 · Probed https://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=*.fly.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 20 Oct 2026 | 18 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5e6e25e6df778e81cd07b85fc9f12d4df7d |
| SANs: *.fly.dev | ||||||
| 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 tokkyo-maru.fly.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | present | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| fly.dev. | 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://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/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 →
tokkyo_analyze ~367
発明（名称・技術分野・課題・解決手段・技術事実）を渡すと、特許性を事前診断する。IPC候補・新規性喪失(特許法30条)・記載要件・発明適格性・進歩性を◯△✕で自己診断し、先行技術調査の角度とクエリも返す。代理出願はしない(本人/弁理士支援)。最終判断は弁理士。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | software | chem | other |
| claimCores | array | – | 独立項の核 [{kind:装置/方法/プログラム/組成物/製造方法/用途/システム, core:限定文}] |
| disclosures | array | – | 自己公開歴 [{where, date:YYYY-MM-DD}]（新規性喪失判定用） |
| facts | array | – | 実装事実・数値・手順(実施可能要件の裏付け) |
| field | string | – | 技術分野 |
| ipc | array | – | – |
| priorArt | array | – | [{id, title, threat:高/中/低}] |
| problem | string | – | 解決しようとする課題 |
| solution | string | – | 課題を解決するための手段(=独立項の要旨) |
| title | string | yes | 発明の名称 |
| today | string | – | 判定基準日 YYYY-MM-DD（30条の残余月数計算に使用） |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
tokkyo_check ~168
tokkyo.json を渡すと、新規性喪失(特許法30条)・記載要件(サポート/実施可能)・発明適格性・進歩性を、その場で決定論的に◯△✕判定する。bim.house の houki_check(建築基準法その場判定)の特許版。登録可否の法的確定ではない(最終は弁理士)。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | – | – |
| claimCores | array | – | – |
| disclosures | array | – | – |
| facts | array | – | – |
| priorArt | array | – | – |
| title | string | yes | – |
| today | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
tokkyo_draft ~177
発明から、特許明細書一式の骨子(tokkyo.json正本＋特許請求の範囲＋明細書セクション＋要約)を決定論生成して返す。bim.house の bim.json／商標まるの shohyo.json に相当。tokkyo_check も同梱。
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicant | string | – | – |
| category | string | – | – |
| claimCores | array | – | – |
| disclosures | array | – | – |
| facts | array | – | – |
| field | string | – | – |
| ipc | array | – | – |
| priorArt | array | – | – |
| problem | string | – | – |
| solution | string | – | – |
| title | string | yes | – |
| today | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server?
io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru is a hosted endpoint at https://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/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 · tokkyo-maru.fly.dev
claude mcp add --transport http yukihamada-tokkyo-maru 'https://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/mcp'
What is the io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server?
io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru. 特許まる, 発明を入れるだけで特許性の事前診断・明細書骨子・新規性喪失(特許法30条)判定。本人/弁理士の出願支援(代理しない)。 This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://tokkyo-maru.fly.dev/mcp).
Is the io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server safe to use?
io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru scores 68 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 io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server expose?
io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru exposes 3 tools: tokkyo_analyze, tokkyo_draft, tokkyo_check. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 712 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru MCP server still maintained?
io.github.yukihamada/tokkyo-maru 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.