Ziplark
MCPB · ZIPLARK-MCP-0.3.0.MCPB
Archive server: extract & create ZIP, 7z, tar, gz/xz/zst; read RAR/RAR5 & ISO. AES-256, safe.
Available components
Last scanned (21 hours ago)
Scores higher than 82% of MCPB servers
Category Documents and Files
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 & Transparency48
- 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 47 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 441 tokens (~147/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 Coverage90
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 70% 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
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.
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
- Maintenance: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- 31 Oct 26 +1
- Provenance: unverified → fail ▼ security
- Security disclosure: unverified → pass ▲ functional
- Stability: pass → 0.97 functional
- 30 Oct 26 −2
- Provenance: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Security disclosure: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Maintenance: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- 25 Oct 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 24 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.
- 22 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.
- 20 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.
- 17 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 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 · Analysed mcpb/https://github.com/zhitongblog/ziplark/releases/download/v0.3.0/ziplark-mcp-0.3.0.mcpb
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 →
ziplark_info ~85
What kind of archive this is and what shape it is in, without listing its entries: format, entry count, sizes, whether it is encrypted, and — for a RAR set — which volumes are present, whether one is missing, whether it is solid, and its comment.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | string | – | Password for encrypted archives |
| path | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
ziplark_list ~278
List the entries inside an archive (zip, 7z, rar, tar.*, gz/bz2/xz/zst, iso). Paged: returns at most `limit` entries (default 200) starting at `offset`, plus the total count, so a huge archive never floods the context. Narrow with `include` before paging when you are looking for something specific. A multi-volume RAR set (`x.part01.rar`, or the older `x.rar` + `x.r00`) is one archive: pass any one of its files and the whole set is listed, with the volumes reported and any missing one named.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dirs | boolean | – | false = files only, true = directories only. Omit for both. |
| include | array | – | Only entries matching one of these path patterns. A pattern with `*` or `?` is matched as a glob against the whole path; otherwise it is a substring match. Filtering happens before paging. |
| limit | integer | – | Maximum entries to return (default 200, capped at 2000). |
| offset | integer | – | Index of the first entry to return (default 0). Use the `next_offset` from the previous response to page forward. |
| password | string | – | Password for encrypted archives |
| path | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
ziplark_test ~78
Verify archive integrity by decompressing every entry and checking its checksum. Writes nothing. Reports every entry that fails, not just the first, so a damaged archive can be triaged — and says so if a volume of a multi-volume set is missing.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | string | – | Password for encrypted archives |
| path | string | yes | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Ziplark MCP server?
Ziplark 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 · ziplark-mcp-0.3.0.mcpb
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 Ziplark MCP server?
Ziplark is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.zhitongblog/ziplark. Archive server: extract & create ZIP, 7z, tar, gz/xz/zst; read RAR/RAR5 & ISO. AES-256, safe. This page covers its MCPB bundle (https://github.com/zhitongblog/ziplark/releases/download/v0.3.0/ziplark-mcp-0.3.0.mcpb).
Is the Ziplark MCP server safe to use?
Ziplark scores 51 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 Ziplark MCP server expose?
Ziplark exposes 3 tools: ziplark_info, ziplark_list, ziplark_test. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 441 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
What licence is the Ziplark MCP server under?
Ziplark declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.