ai.name/nameai-mcp
version 1.0.1
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/namekart/nameai_mcp
- commit 1f6e7373159f
- transport streamable-http
- files read 9
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
No tag matching version 1.0.1 was found in this repository, so the scan read the default branch instead. The findings below describe that code, not necessarily the released version.
95
94measured on 85% of this axis
47
74measured on 70% of this axis
19
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
- sdk-python/src/nameai/__init__.py:105mcp-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.
request = urllib.request.Request(url, data=data, headers=headers, method=method) try: with urllib.request.urlopen(request, timeout=self.timeout) as response: return response.read().decode("utf-8") except urllib.error.HTTPError as exc: # non-2xx
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
auth enforcement present at a call site in the source (auth middleware) and documented in the README; "refused without credentials" (`03` §4) established by reading the code rather than by connecting
- transport_security
declared endpoint(s) are HTTPS: https://mcp.name.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 (OAUTH_INTROSPECTION_SECRET) and documented in the README
- authorization_granularity
4 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
Dependency Health
- uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4145
transitive, CVSS 9.1, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4145 - uv.lockmcp 2.1.0 — GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv
direct, CVSS 7.5, fixed in 2.2.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/GHSA-84m7-p3x7-pcfv - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4183
transitive, CVSS 8.2, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4183 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4143
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4143 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4144
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4144 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4149
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4149 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4150
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4150 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4151
transitive, CVSS 7.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4151 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4146
transitive, CVSS 6.5
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4146 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4152
transitive, CVSS 5.9, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4152 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4140
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4140 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4141
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.15.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4141 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4142
transitive, CVSS 5.3, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4142 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4147
transitive, CVSS 4.8, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4147 - uv.lockpyjwt 2.13.0 — PYSEC-2026-4148
transitive, CVSS 4.4, fixed in 2.14.0
https://osv.dev/vulnerability/PYSEC-2026-4148
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 32 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): 4.8 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
this repository publishes neither releases nor version tags
- 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
sdk/package.json declares 'MIT' but no LICENSE file ships with the source
- readme_quality
README.md: configuration documented (+25), 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.