ai.ankimcp/anki-mcp-server-addon
version 0.40.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/ankimcp/anki-mcp-server-addon
- commit b67c914b4560
- transport unknown
- files read 158
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
68
not assessed
the registry entry declares no transport, so `03` §4's stdio carve-out cannot be applied either way
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source: requirements.txt does not pin every requirement to one exact version, so dependency versions are unresolved and no vulnerability can be attributed
92measured on 90% of this axis
53measured on 80% of this axis
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Code Safety
- anki_mcp_server/dependency_loader.py:1125mcp-python-archive-extract-unconfined (critical/medium)
An archive is extracted without validating member paths. A tar or zip entry may name `../` or an absolute path and write outside the destination; Python's extractall has historically done exactly that.
if ".dist-info" in member: continue zf.extract(member, temp_dir) # Remove wheel file - .github/scripts/check_registry_version.py:130mcp-python-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound HTTP request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part of it is caller-supplied, the server can be steered at internal hosts — cloud metadata endpoints, admin ports, other tenants.
) try: with urllib.request.urlopen(request, timeout=REQUEST_TIMEOUT) as response: return response.status, response.read().decode("utf-8", "replace"), "ok" except urllib.error.HTTPError as exc: - anki_mcp_server/dependency_loader.py:867mcp-python-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound HTTP request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part of it is caller-supplied, the server can be steered at internal hosts — cloud metadata endpoints, admin ports, other tenants.
the check is skipped whenever ``response.chunked`` is true. """ with urllib.request.urlopen(pypi_url, timeout=_NETWORK_TIMEOUT_SECONDS) as response: chunked = getattr(response, "chunked", False) try: - anki_mcp_server/dependency_loader.py:949mcp-python-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound HTTP request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part of it is caller-supplied, the server can be steered at internal hosts — cloud metadata endpoints, admin ports, other tenants.
wrong percentage is harmless where a wrongly rejected download is not. """ with urllib.request.urlopen(wheel_url, timeout=_NETWORK_TIMEOUT_SECONDS) as response: chunked = getattr(response, "chunked", False) try: - anki_mcp_server/primitives/essential/tools/store_media_file_tool.py:87mcp-python-ssrf-nonliteral-url (medium/low)
An outbound HTTP request is made to a URL that is not a literal. If any part of it is caller-supplied, the server can be steered at internal hosts — cloud metadata endpoints, admin ports, other tenants.
try: with urllib.request.urlopen(url, timeout=30) as response: return response.read(), "url" except urllib.error.HTTPError as e:
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
the registry entry declares no transport, so `03` §4's stdio carve-out cannot be applied either way
- transport_security
the registry entry declares no transport for any package or remote
- secret_handling
detect-secrets matched 3 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Base64 High Entropy String, Secret Keyword). Those flag placeholders, variable names and content hashes as readily as credentials, so they do not establish the committed credential `03` §4's 0 asserts, and this sub-check is not scored; Secret Keyword at README.md:404; Base64 High Entropy String at tests/e2e/test_media_security.py:12; Base64 High Entropy String at tests/e2e/test_media_tools.py:11
- authorization_granularity
no tool registration was recognised anywhere in the source. An MCP server registers tools by definition, so this is a gap in our detection rather than a server with none, and `03` §4's threshold cannot be applied to it.
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 5 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
median over 11 issue(s) in the last 6 months: 0.3 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
released 5 day(s) ago (by releases), inside `03` §5's 30-day window
- bus_factor
sole maintainer
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; text not matched against any license this build can identify (`04` §7's classifier is not wired; see module docstring)
- readme_quality
README.md: installation instructions (+25), configuration documented (+25), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
specific scope or access documentation is present, but `03` §7's 100 and 60 bands both compare it against scopes INFERRED from static analysis, which is not built yet. Scoring 100 on an empty inference would be a vacuous truth — 'all ∅ inferred scopes are documented'.
- changelog
no CHANGELOG in the fetched source. `03` §7's partial credit for tagged releases carrying release notes is not applied here — that needs the forge API, which this check does not call
- security_contact
no SECURITY.md and no disclosure contact in the README, so a finder has no route to report a vulnerability privately
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.