ai.groundroute/web-search
version 0.1.0
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/PROJECT-B-26/groundroute-mcp
- commit 0c4238915edd
- transport streamable-http
- files read 1
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
No tag matching version 0.1.0 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
100
92measured on 60% of this axis
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
68measured on 70% of this axis
43
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://api.groundroute.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 (GROUNDROUTE_API_KEY) and documented in the README
- authorization_granularity
1 tool registration(s) detected — at or below `03` §4's threshold of 3, so there is no multi-tool surface to segregate
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 119 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
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
neither the README nor the MCP manifest documents what the server accesses or what side effects it has
- 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.