ai.getperspective/mcp
version 0.0.8
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/Perspective-AI/mcp
- commit e75f78536813
- transport streamable-http
- files read 1
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
89measured on 45% of this axis
33
85measured 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.
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
no authentication appears in the source we fetched, but this server's network endpoint is a hosted remote, whose authentication can be enforced in front of its code — and no credential header is declared. An undeclared header is not an absent one, so `03` §4's "no authentication" band is not established.
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://getperspective.ai/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
credentials are read from the environment (PERSPECTIVE_ACCESS_TOKEN) and documented in the README
- 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. A tool-list handler IS present, so the tools are built in a shape this counter could not enumerate.
Dependency Health
- package-lock.jsonproxy-addr 2.0.7 — GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h
transitive, CVSS 9.1, fixed in 2.0.8
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h - package-lock.json@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.24.3 — GHSA-8r9q-7v3j-jr4g
direct, CVSS 8.7, fixed in 1.25.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-8r9q-7v3j-jr4g - package-lock.json@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.24.3 — GHSA-6qxp-vccf-f47h
direct, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 1.31.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-6qxp-vccf-f47h - package-lock.json@modelcontextprotocol/sdk 1.24.3 — GHSA-345p-7cg4-v4c7
direct, CVSS 7.1, fixed in 1.26.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-345p-7cg4-v4c7 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-4c8g-83qw-93j6
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.3
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-4c8g-83qw-93j6 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-7p8r-x3mc-p8w7
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.5
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-7p8r-x3mc-p8w7 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-f65p-4m7j-42xc
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.6
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-f65p-4m7j-42xc - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-jqff-g426-hqxp
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.6
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-jqff-g426-hqxp - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-q3j6-qgpj-74h6
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.1
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-q3j6-qgpj-74h6 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.7
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-qw65-cvwx-89v3 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-v2hh-gcrm-f6hx
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.4
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-v2hh-gcrm-f6hx - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-v39h-62p7-jpjc
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 3.1.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-v39h-62p7-jpjc - package-lock.jsonpath-to-regexp 8.3.0 — GHSA-j3q9-mxjg-w52f
transitive, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 8.4.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-j3q9-mxjg-w52f - package-lock.jsonqs 6.14.0 — GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g
transitive, CVSS 6.3, fixed in 6.16.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g - package-lock.jsonqs 6.14.0 — GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498p
transitive, CVSS 6.3, fixed in 6.14.1
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-6rw7-vpxm-498p - package-lock.jsonqs 6.14.0 — GHSA-q8mj-m7cp-5q26
transitive, CVSS 6.3, fixed in 6.15.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-q8mj-m7cp-5q26 - package-lock.jsonpath-to-regexp 8.3.0 — GHSA-27v5-c462-wpq7
transitive, CVSS 5.9, fixed in 8.4.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-27v5-c462-wpq7 - package-lock.jsonajv 8.17.1 — GHSA-2g4f-4pwh-qvx6
transitive, CVSS 5.5, fixed in 8.18.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-2g4f-4pwh-qvx6 - package-lock.jsonfast-uri 3.1.0 — GHSA-hrr3-gc8f-f4qj
transitive, CVSS 4.8, fixed in 3.1.8
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-hrr3-gc8f-f4qj - package-lock.jsonbody-parser 2.2.1 — GHSA-v422-hmwv-36x6
transitive, CVSS 3.7, fixed in 2.3.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-v422-hmwv-36x6 - package-lock.jsonqs 6.14.0 — GHSA-w7fw-mjwx-w883
transitive, CVSS 3.7, fixed in 6.14.2
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-w7fw-mjwx-w883
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 45 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
lifetime median (1 issue(s) in the last 6 months, under `03` §5's floor of 3): 2.7 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
median release gap 0 days (by releases), last release 171 day(s) ago
- 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; 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
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.