ai.calendarmcp/server
version 1.0.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/Full-Vibe/calendarmcp-public
- commit cb6a55d7eaf2
- transport streamable-http
- methodology 0.2.0
No tag matching version 1.0.0 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
not assessed
no source files in a language the ruleset covers (python, javascript, typescript, go)
85measured on 85% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
54measured on 70% of this axis
72measured 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.
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
credential requirement present; enforcement partially evidenced
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://calendarmcp.ai/api/mcp; scored 80, not 100: `03` §4 reserves 100 for HTTPS *with HSTS*, and an HSTS header can only be seen by connecting, which `04` §9 does not do. This is an unverifiable band, not an observed absence.
- secret_handling
no committed credential found, and no environment variable with a credential-shaped name is read anywhere in the source
- authorization_granularity
11 tool registrations and no conditional access logic found — `03` §4 calls this case 'needs human review' and assigns it no score band, so it is not scored here
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 131 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
lifetime median (2 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 15.5 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
this repository publishes neither releases nor version tags
- bus_factor
sole maintainer, and no commit in over 90 days
- 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; identified as 'MIT' from its text
- 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
docs/changelog.md present
- 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.